HD 

211 

C2 

B4 

1876 

BANC 


BEFORE    THE 


jlttM  %\^\t%  %nnin-mmtt^ 


OF     c!.A.ijiFo:R.Kri.A.. 


IK  THE  MATTER  OF  THE 


Rancho  Corte  Maderoudel  Presidio, 


TESTIMONY  @  PROCEEDINGS. 


anoia  Si  VnleiitiiiB.  Printers  ami  Engrarers,   317  Clay  Clrtft.  o. 


^^Me/cM^mc^^ 

I)                (y 

University  of  California  •  Berkeley 

The  Peter  and  Rosell  Harvey 

Memorial  Fund 

INDEX. 


PAGE* 

Appoaraiice 1-2 

Testimony  of 

AUardc,  G,  F 84 

''  Kocallod 110 

'<  *•        227 

"        235 

276 

*'  <<       288 

Au,sa:i,  Hiiam 202 

'■  Kecalled 248 

'•  <'        259 

Borotra,  John 238 

Brouks,  B.  S 218 

Kcealled  232 

Brown,  Charle? 17 

Brown,  R.   S 206 

Davis,  Wm.H 72 

De  Silva,  Antonio  ¥ 23 

Gardner,  Peter 93 

<'  Recalled 207 

"  ''        221 

'<  ''        241 

'<  "        300 

Hopkins,  R.  C 24 

Recalled 35 

"  "        70 

'*  '< 164 

'•        179 

♦  <  " , 206 

"  '-        208 

'<  <<        233 

"  "        242 

<'  "        243 

*«  "        271 

Lent,  Silas 59 

Lewis,  William  J 182 

Lyford,  Benj.  F 283 

Ne    hall,  H.  C 293 

Read,  Juan  J 172 

"  Recalled 254 

Robinson,  J.  A 233 

Soto,  Francisco 167 

Throckmorton,   S.  R 298 

Valencia,  Candelario 6 


II  INDEX. 

Testimony  of  PAGt-.. 

Valencia,  Jose  B,... 11 

"              Recalled 30 

Valentine,  Thos.  B  H4 

"                 Becalled 97 

♦*                       *'         241 

«'                          u         242 

♦'  "     .1V.'.V.'.V ; !..^!!!J!!!"""!!!!!!!!!  292 

"        293 

Wilde,   J.  H £6i> 

^<  Recalled 307 

'*        289 

Offered  by  Thos.  B.  Valentine. 

T.  B.  v.,  No.  1.— Opinion  and  Decree  of  the  Board  of  Land  Commis- 
sioners in  case  of  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio 179 

T.  B.  v.,  No.  2.~Tracedcopy  of  Expediente  of  same  rancho,  Juan  Read, 

confirmee 179 

T.  B.  v.,  No.  3.— Agreement  James   C.  Bolton    with  John  J.  Read,  et 

al.j  dated  August  12,  1865 179 

T.  B.  v.,  No.  4»— Deed  H.  A.  Boyle  to  T.   B.    Valentine,   dated  Jan*. 

10,  1872 179 

T.  B.  v.,  No.  5.— Deed  H.  A.   Boyle  to  T.  B.  Valentine,  dated  Sept. 

23,  1872 179 

Field  notes  of  survey  of  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio, 
confirmed  to  heirs  of  Juan  Read,  made  by  L.  Ransom,  Deputy- 
Surveyor,  in  September  and  October,  1873,  with  map  attached 246 

T.  B.  v.,  No.  6. -Deed  James   C.    Bolton  to  T.    B.  Valentine,   dated 

July  25,  1868 246 

T.  B.  v.,  No.  7.— Deed  John  J.  Read.  Hilaria  M.  Read,  Thos.  B.  Def- 
febach  and  Inez  Deffebach,  to  James  C.  Bolton,  dated  August 
12,  1865 246 

T.  B.  v.,  No.  8. — Testimony  of  EusebioGalindo,  taken  in  case  of  Bolton 

ys.  Van  Reynegom,  e^  aZ 246 

T.  B.  v.,  No.  9. — Testimony  of  Jose  de  la  Cruz  Sanchez,  taken  in  case 
of  Bolton  vs.  Van  Reynegom,  et  al.,  and  Bolton  vs.  Kashaw,  in 
U.S.  Circuit  Court 247 

T.  B.  v..  No.  10.— Judgment  Roll  in  the  case  of  James  C.  Bolton  vs. 

Israel  Kashaw,  et.  al 290 

Offered  by  S.  R.  Throckmorton. 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  1.— Objections  to  survey  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera 

del  Presidio,  by  B.  S.  Brooks,  filed  May  1st,  1875 103 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  2. —  Stipulation  requesting  confirmation  of   Ransom 

survey 104 

Plat  of  Ransom  Survey,  marked  "  L.  R.,  Dep.  Sur." 104 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  3. — Notice  that  objections  to  Ransom  survey  would 

be  insisted  on 105 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  4.— Stipulation  withdrawing  claimant's  and  T.   B. 

Valentine's  first  objection  to  survey 106 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  7. — Certified  copy  of  the  translation  of  a  portion  of 

the  expediente  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio 121 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  8.— Diseno  of  the  Mission  of  San  Rafael 121 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  9. — Certified  copy  of  a  translation  of  a  portion  of  the 

expediente  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio 122 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  10.— Certified  copy  of  a  decree  of  the  District  Court, 

No.  83,  dated  February  11th,  1856 126 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  11.— Deed  John  J.  Read  to  Hugh  A.  Boyle,  dated 

May  11th,  1869 127 


INDEX*  111 

'  "  ~^  PAGfi. 

Ex.  S.  K.  T.,  No.  12.— Deed,  Ylaria  Kead  to  Hugh  A.  Boyle,  dated 

May  24,  1869 127 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  13.— Deed,  Deffebach  and  wife,  Boyle  and  wife,  Val- 
entine and  Newhall  to  Julius  McCeney,  dated  February  1st,  1871  128 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  14.— Deed,  Julius  C.  McCeney  to  S.  R.  Throckmor- 
ton, dated  January  19,  1875 * ••" 128 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  15.— Copy,  plat  and  field  notes  of  survey  of  G.  F. 

Allardt  of  land  deeded  by  Doffebach,  et  al.,  to  Julius  C.  McCeney  128 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  17.— Decision  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  in  the 
case  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  dated  January  6th, 
1872 » 179 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  18.— Instructions  to  L.  Ransom  to  make  survey  of 
Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  dated  July,  1873,  according 
to  certain  lines  therein  described >..».......   240 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  19.— Instructions  to  G.  F.  Allardt  to  run  a  certain 

line  on  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  dated  May  8th,  1874  240 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  20.— Power  of  attorney,  Thosv  B.  Valentine  to  S.  D. 

Valentine,  dated  April  28,  1870 241 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  21.— Plat  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio 
finally  confirmed  to  the  heirs  of  Juan  Read,  by  L.  Ransom,  U.  S. 
Deputy  Surveyor,  October,  1873 242 

Ex.  Sb  R.  T.,  No.  22. — A  scale  of  cordeles,  conforming  to  40  chains  to 

the  inch .- 242 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  23. — Map  annexed  to  deposition  of  William  Hartnell, 
referred  to  in  objections  of  S.  R.  Throckmorton,  filed  May  26, 
1875 242 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  24.— Deed,  Juan  J.  Read,  Hilaria  M.  Read,  Thomas 
B.  Defifebach  and  Inez  Deffebach  to  James  C.  Bolton,  dated  Au- 
gust 12,1865 297 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  25.— Deed,  James  C.  Bolton  to  Thos.  B.Valentine, 

dated  July  25th,  1868 297 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  26.— Deed,  James   C.  Bolton  to  Rudolph  Steinbach, 

dated  September  16th,  1865 297 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  27.~Deed,  Rudolph  Steinbach  to  Emil  Steinbach, 

dated  March  28,  1866 298 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  28.— Power  of  attorney,  Emil  Steinbach  to  Rudolph 

Steinbach,  dated  February  18,  1864 298 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  29.— Deed,  Emil   Steinbach   to  Emil   Grisar,  dated 

June  16th,  1866 * , ,.   298 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  30.— Deed,  Emil  Grisar  to  S.  R.  Throckmorton,  dated 

June  19,  1866 298 

Ex.  S.  K.  T.,  No.  31.— Deed,  S.  R.  Throckmorton  to  Bugh  A.  Boyle, 

dattd  January  28,  1871 298 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  32.— Deed,  S.  R.  Throckmorton  to  Thos.  B.  Valen- 
tine, dated  January  28th,  1871..... 298 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  33.— Deed,  S.  R.  Throckmorton  to  Inez  Read  de  Def- 
febach, wife  of  T.  R.  Defifebach,  dated  January  28,  1871 298 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  34.— Deed,  Hugh  A.  Boyle  to  H.  C.  Newhall,  July, 

1871 : 298 

Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  35. — Notice  of  motion  to  dismiss  proceedings  in  U.S. 

District  Court  in  case  of  U.  S.  vs.  Heirs  of  Juan  Read 309 

Offered  by  Mullen  &  Hyde's  Clients. 
Certified  copy  of  expediente,  translation,  and  diseSo  in  the  case  of  Jose 

M.  Limentour,  No.  549,  Land  Commission 22 

Opinion  and  decision  of  Land  Commission  in  same  case,  filed  February 

12,  1856 22 

Ex.  to  De  Silva's  Island  Claim,  J.  A.  R. — Deed  from  Board  of  Land 

Commissioners  to  Antonio  F.  Silva,  dated  August  24,  1872 ..>v     2^^ 


ly  INDEX. 


PAGE. 

Ex.  A,  Mullen  &  Hyde.— Oi:der  and  decree  dismissing  proceedings  in 
the  District  Court  o.f  the  U.  S.  in  the  case  ot'  U.  S.  vs.  Heirs  of 
Juan  Beed 116 

Ex.  Mullen  &  Hyde  D.  E.  P.,  April  5,  1876.— ^Record  in  case  of  BoltOin 

vs.  Van  Beynegom  et  al.  in  XJ.  S.  Circuit  Court 23iO 

Complaint  in  case  of  Bolton  vs.  Van  Reynegoin  et  al.,  U.  S.  Ci?c^it 

Court 239 

Ex.  Mullen  &  Hyde  G.  H.  I.,  April  5,  1876. — Answer  in  sapie  case  of 

Philip  Ray,  tenant  of  S.  R.  Throckmorton 239 

O.  K. — Diagram , 240 

Ex.  Mullen  &  Hyde  A.  B.  C,  April    5,   1876.— Testimony  of  Eusebio 

Galindo,  James  T.  Stratton,  and  Juan  Read,  in  same  case. 240 

Ex.  L.  M.  N.  Mullen  &  Hyde. — Map  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio  according  to  the  original  diseno  and  juridical  measure- 
ments by  C.  C.  Tracy 240 

Ex.   Mullen  &  Hyde  O.  P.  Q.,   April  5,   1876.— Motion  ol  Mullen  & 

Hyde  to  dismiss  all  proceedings  in  the  case 240 

Ex.  Mullen  «&  Hyde  K.,  April  5,  1876. — Copies  of  various  papers  per- 
taining to  the  claim  of  land  1  N.,  6  W.,  M.  D.  M.,  as  ceirtified 
by  James  T.  Stratton,  July  20,  1875 240 

Ex.  Mullen  &  Hyde  R.  S.  T.,  April  5,  1876.— Letter  of  Mullen  &  Hyde 

to  S.  I.  Burdett,  Commissioner  of  General  Land  Office^ 240 

Ex.  Mullen  &  Hyde  "W.  V.  W.,  April  5,  1876.— Certified  copy  of  mt^p 
attached  to  the  deposition  of  W.  E.  Hartnell,  in  case  No.  104, of 
the  late  Board  of  Land  Commissioners 240 

Ex.  Mullen  &  Hyde  A.  B.  C,  April  5,  1876.— Instructions  of  WilHs 
Drummond,  Commissioner,  to  J.  R.  Hardenburgh,  U.  S.  Sur- 
veyor-General for  California,  dated  February  5,  1872. 240 

Ex.  Mullen  &  Hyde  D.  E.  F.— Deppsition  of  Chas.  C.  Tracy  in  the  case 
of  Bolton  vs.  Van  Reynegom  et  al.,  with  Exhibit  No.  2  thereto 
annexed, 243 

Offered  by  Ed^win  Gardner. 

Ex.  G.  R.,  No.  1. — Edwin  Gardner's  objections  and  subdivisions  of  the 

Mathewson  survey  by  the  heirs  of  John  Read 299 

Ex.  G.  R.,  No.  2. — Probate  Court,  Marin  County  ;  in  the  matter  of  the 
estate  of  Jno.  Read,  deceased.  Certified  copy  of  order  appoint- 
ing John  S.  Gibbs  administrator,  or  guardian  for  minor  heirs 299 

Ex.  G.  R.,  No.  3. — Certified  copy  of  deed,  Jno.  S.  Gibbs,  administrator, 

to  B.  R.  Buckelew 299 

Ex.  G.  R.,  No.  4. — Certified  copy  of  appointment  of  Jas.  McM.  Shafer 

and  T.  Murphy  as  guardians 299 

Ex.  G.  R.,  No.  5. — Complaint,  Answer  and  Decree,  Garcia,  et  al.j  vs. 

Buckelew  and  Gibbs  ;  7th  Dist.  Court,  Marin  County  299 

Ex.  G.  R.,  No.  6. — Complaint,  Answer  and  Judgment,  Albert  Gardner 

vs.  B.  R.  Buckelew  ;  7th  Dist.  Court,  Marin  County.. 299 

Ex.  G.  R.,  No.  7. — Complaint,  Answer  and  Judgment,  Edwin  Gardner 

vs.  B.  R.  Buckelew  ;  7th  Dist.  Court,  Marin  County 299 

Offered  by  Peter  Crardner. 

Ex.  P.  G.,  No.  1. — Instructions  from  Commissioner  General  Land  Of- 
fice, Washington,  to  U.  S.  Surveyor-General  for  California,  dated 
Februarys,  1872,  as  to  fixing  eastern  boundary  line  of  the  Rancho 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio....... 150 

Ex.  P.  G.,  No.  2.— Map  of  the  said  rancho,  with  its  surroundings,  etc., 

by  Hiram  Austin,  surveyor,  January  15,  1876 203 

Ex.  P.  G.,  No.  3. — Ancient  Record   Book,  containing  descriptions   of 

Missions,  etc.,  prior  to  1824 206 


INPEX,  y 


PAGE, 

Ex.  p.  G.,  No.  4.— Translation  of  page  4  of  last  Exhibit... ...........vv—  20t> 

P.  G.,  No.  1. — Gardner's  objections  to  survey 300 

P.  G.,  No.  2. — Gardner's  map,  heretofore  offered......  ...••••••"•  •••v  •.••••  30p 

P.  G.,  No.  3. — Certified  copy  instructions  to  R.  0.  Mathewson......-...^.-  300 

P.  G.,  No.  4.— Heretofore  pffered  ,,..,.. ...v •.••..   30p 

P.  G.,  No.  5. — Depositions  of  Francisco  Sanchez,  J.  J.  Papy,  and  M. 

G.  Vallejo 300 

P.  G.,  No.  6. — Petition  of  "Widow  Read   for  the  lands  adjacent  to  the 

Rancho  Corte  Maderft  del  Presidio... 300 

P.  G.,  No.  7. — Certified  copy  of  pre-emption  claim  of  John  J.  Read,  of 

May  28,  1863 300 

P.  G.,  No.  8. — Agreement  James  C.   Bolton  with  John  J.  Read,  et  al., 

dated  August  12,  1865  (T.  B.  V.,  No.  3) 300 

P.  G.,  No.  9. — Certified  copy  of  location  of  school  land  warrant  and 

plats,  T.  B.Valentine,  et  al 800 

Offered  by  J.  B.  Howard. 

Ex.  Solar  No.  1. — Petition  of  Throckmorton  to  Surveyor-General,  dated 

J^Xarch  3,  1869,  locating  solar .^....,.,  110 

Ex.  Solar  No.  2. — Plat  and  field  ^lotes  of  part  of  boundary  of  the  Rancho 
Corte  I^adera  del  Presidio,  xe-surveyed  by  G.  P.  Allardt,  Dep. 

Surveyor — 110 

fix.  Solar  No.  3. — Instructions  to  G.  F.  Allardt  for  re-surveying  part  of 

line 110 

Ex.  Solar  No.  4. — Letter  of  instructions,  issued  May  28,  1874,  by  Jas. 
T.  Stratton,  U.  S.  Surveyor-General  for  California,  for  re-survey 
of  the  western  boundary  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Pre- 
sidio   112 

Public  Lands  Survey,  T.  1  N.,  R.  6  W.— Survey  of  public  lands,  T.  1 

N.,  R.  6.  W.,  M.  D.  Mer.,  approved  November  27,  1874 112 

Ex.  No.  1  J.  A.  R. — Complaint  as  amended  in  Bolton  vs.  Van  Reyne- 

gom  et  al.,  No.  190,  Circuit  Court,  California 214 

Ex.  No.  2  J.  A.  R.— Answer  of  Mary  King  (same  case) 214 

Ex.  No.  3  J.  A.  R. — Testimony  of  S.  R.  Throckmorton  (same  case) 214 

Ex.  No.  4  J.  A.  R. — Testimony  of  George  F.  Allardt  (same  case) 214 

Ex.  No.  5  J.  A.  R. — Testimony  of  "William  J.  Lswis  (same  case 214 

Ex.  No.  6  J.  A.  R. — Judgment  of  the  Court  (san  e  case) 214 

Ex.  No.  7  J.  A.  R. — Stipulation  (same  case) 214 

Ex.  No.  8  J.  A.  R. — Stipulation  (same  case) 214 

Ex.  No.  9  J.  A.  R. — Afiidavit  of  James  M.  Seawell  (same  case} 214 

Ex.  No.  10  J.  A.  R.— Affidavit  of  S.  R.  Throckmorton  (same  case) 214 

Ex.  No.  11  J.  A.  R. — Deed,  Mary  King  to  Francis  D.  Barlow,  dated 

October  28,  1873 217 

Ex.  No.  12,  J.  A.  R. — Decision  of  Secretary  of  the  Interior  of  Janu- 
ary 6th,  1872 221 

Offered  by  Sharp  for  Mrs.  Hilaria  R.  de  Lyford  et  al, 
Claimants. 

H.  R.  L.  A. — Agreement  for  partition  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del 

Presidio 280 

H.  R.  L.  B. — A  report  of  arbitrators  or  commissioners,  with  plats 280 

H.  R.  L.  C. — Plat  and  description  of  the  part  allotted  to  Hilaria  Read..  280 
H.  R.  L.  D. — Deed   of  partition   from   John  J.  Read  and  Inez  Read 

Deffebach  to  Hilaria  Read 280 

H.  R.  L.  E. — Map  of  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  Ex.  2,  to  de- 
position of  Tracy,  showing  location  of  said  rancho  as  partitioned 
and  according  to  Mathewson's  survey  in  1858 280 


mm  ift  1;  A  m 


Mi  INDEX. 

PAGK. 

H.  K.  L.  F. — Deed  of  partition,  Hilaria  Kead  and  Inez  Read  Deffebach 

to  John  J.  Read 281^ 

H.  R.  L.  G. — Deed  in  partition  from  John  J.  and  Hilaria  Read  to  Inez 

Read  Deffebach .,. 283! 

Ex.  B.  R.  Buckelew,  No.  1. — Buckelewmap  of  California  City 260 

"Whitney's  State  Geological  Survey,  of  1873,  of  San  Francisco  and  vi- 
cinity.......v ,, 28» 

Offered  by  the  United  States. 

Ex.  Mathewson. — Plat  of  Mathew?on  survey G8 

U.  S.  A.  No.  1. — Motion  to  dismiss  proceedings,  etc 29(y 

IT.  S.  A.  No.  2.^0rder  of  approval  of  said  Mathewson  survey  by  the 

Surveyor-General,  dated  August  15,  1860......... , 296 

U.  S.  A.  No.  3. — Certificate  of  publication  of  said  survey,  under  act  of 

June  :f4,  1860 296 

U.  S-  A.  No.  4. — Order  entered,  directing  return  of  survey  into  District 

Court  on  Sept.  13,  I860 296 

U.  S.  A.  No.  5. — Order  of  said  District   Court  approving  said  survey, 

Sept.  28,  1865 296 

tJ.-S.  A.  No.  6.— Decree  of  the  U.  S.  District  Court,  dated  October  16, 

1865,  ordering  approval  set  aside  and  proceedings  dismissed 296 

U.  S.  A.  No.  7. — Map  of  the  region  adjacent  to  the  Bay  of  San  Fran- 
cisco, State  Geological  Survey  of  California,  by  J.  D.  Whitney...  297 

Motion  to  dismiss.r.....  .....^ ., 300 


DISCREPANCIES  IN  REFERENCES. 

Reference  at  printed  p.  48,  to  manuscript  p.  132,  may  be  found  at  printed  p.  47 

"  <<  *'  109,  "  192  &  193,  *'  ''  '*  68  &  69» 

u  it  .t  119^  ti  u          200,  "  '*  '*  ♦'       71 

"  ''  "  140,  "  *<          39^,  '*  '<  "  «'     139 

u  "  "  140,  «*  "          400,  "  ''  "  "      139 

II  ii  ii  145^  u  u          239,  ♦'  <♦  «*  <*       84 

u  ti  a  185^  u  u          509^  a  K  a  n      jgi 

a  u  a  214,  *<'  *'           591,  «<  *<  <«  *'      213 

«  u  i;  275,  <'  *'          752,  <'  «'  "  "     272 

u  u  a  282,  «'  "           761,  "  "  "  '<■      276 

r(  ii  u  282;  ''  <<           776,  '<  "  "'  ''      281 

ERRATA. 
Omitted  in  Index. 

EXHIBITS  OF  S.  K.  THROCKMOKTON. 

S.  R.  T.  No.  5— T.  B,  Valentine's  objections  to  survey.  ^ 

S.  11.  T.  ijo.  6— Map  accompanying  objections  of  S.  R.  Throckmorton,  filed  -^ 

Mav  26  1875  " i  age  i.^ 

S.  R.  T.  No.  93^-Tracing  of  plat  of  Township  IN.,  R.  6  W.,  M.  D.  M Page  123 

S.  R.  T.  No.  Iti— Scale  of  cordels  to  be  used  with  Ex.  No.  b i  age  idi 

EXHIBITS  OF  EDWIN  GARDNER. 

Ex.  G.  R.  No.  8— Deed  Val.  D.  Doub  (Sheriff)  to  Edwin  Gardner Page  299 

EXHIBITS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

Ex  U.  S.  A.  No.  8— Bill  San  Francisco  HeraM  for  advertising Page  309 

Ex.  U.  S.  A.  No.  9— Bill  Sonoma  Co.  Journal  for  advertising Page  rfU9.^ 

EXHIBIT  OF  MULLAN  &  HYDE.  ^ 

X,  Y,  Z— Plat  of  Corte  de  Madera  del  Presidio Page  261 


Before  the  Xiaited  States  Surveyor -General  for  Calif ornica 

Thursday,  June  3cl,  1875. 

Pursuant  to  notice  duly  given  by  the  attorneys,  the  case 
■of  the  contested  survey  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera,  Juan 
Read,  heirs'  confirmee,  is  duly  Called. 

Present,  Jas.  T.  Stratton,  IJ.  S.  Surveyor-General;  J.  A. 
Robinson,  U.  S.  Commissioner. 

W.  H.  Patterson  appearing  for  S.  R.  Throckmorton. 

S.  L.  Cutter  appearing  for  Edward  Gardner. 

J.  W.  Shanklin  appearing  for  S.  R.  Throckmorton. 

John  B.  Howard  appearing  for  John  L  Cushing,  F.  1). 
Barlow,  Thomas  Jj.  Riley. 

B.  S.  Brooks,  by  Mr.  Leviston,  appeal^  for  Valentine  and 
Throckmorton,  and  for  the  Claimant. 

Sol.  A.  Sharp  appears  for  the  heirs  of  Juan  Read, 
•claimant,  Mrs.  YJaria  Read,  Lyford,  Mrs.  Deffebach,  and 
John  J.  Read. 

Application  by  Brooks  for  continuance,  opposed  by  Jno. 
B.  Howard  and  Sharp,  who  hisist  upon  his  motion  to  strike 
out  the  opposition  of  those  parties  named  in  his  application 
to  strike  out,  on  file  herein. 

Resisted  by  Patterson. 

Peter  Gardner  appeared  in  his  own  behalf. 

Walter  Van  Dyke,  U.  S.  District  Attorney,  appearing  for 
the  U.  S. 

Case  continued  by  the  U.  S.  Surveyor-General,  till  Tues^ 
•day,  July  13th,  1875,  at  10  o'clock  a.  m. 

Continued  till  July  27th,  1875,  at  11  a.  m. 


Tuesday,  July  27th,  187-5. 

Corte  Madera  del  Presidio. 

The  case  is  resumed. 

Present  James  T.  Stratton,  U.  S.  Surveyor-General ;  J. 
A.  Robinson,  U.  S.  Commissioner. 

B.  S.  Brooks  appears  for  claimants,  and  for  Thos.  B. 
Valentine. 


Sol.  A.  Sharp,  Esq.,  appears  for  Benj.  Lyford  and  wife^ 
John  Eead  and  Inez  Dettebach,  children  and  heirs  of  said 
John  Read,  deceased,  who  are  the  claimants  of  the  rancho 
in  this  case. 

S.  L.  Cutter  appears  for  Edwin  Gardner,  Thos.  Collins. 

John  B.  Howard  appears  for  John  I.  Cushing,  F.  D.  Bar- 
low, Thos.  L.  Kiley,  and  for  Walter  Van  Dyke,  U.  S.  District 
Attorney,  in  his  absence. 

Mullen  &  Hyde,  attorneys  for  claimants,  under  State 
University  locations. 

Peter  Gardner,  attorney  for  himself. 

J.  W.  Shanklin,  attorney  for  S.  R.  Throckmorton. 

Mullen  &  Hyde,  for  Antonio  De  Silva,  W.  T.  Coleman, 
A.  B.  Forbes. 

J.  B.  Southard  appears  for  Wormouth. 

John  B.  Howard  appears  for  Leonard  B.  Story,  claiming 
tide  lands,  under  State  locations. 

Brooks  says  he  represents  the  claimants. 

Sharp  replies,  that  he  is  the  only  attorney  for  the  heirs 
of  Juan  Read,  and  has  done  for  twenty  years. 

Sharp  objects  to  Brooks'  appearing  for  claimants,  and 
insists  that  Brooks  designate  and  name  who  he  appears  for. 

Brooks  says  he  appears  for  all  the  claimants  of  the  Read 
Rancho. 

Upon  inquiry,  Mr.  Sol.  A.  Sharp  says  he  appears  for  John 
Read  and  Benj.  Lj'ford,  and  for  all  the  heirs  except  Mrs. 
Detfebach,  and  asks  that  question  be  suspended  till  he  can 
see  Mrs.  l)efFebach. 

Mr.  Brooks  asks  that  his  name  be  erased  from  the  protest 
on  behalf  of  Mr.  S.  R.  Throckmorton. 

Mr.  Sharp  objects  to  the  erasure  of  the  records  of  this 
office. 

The  Surveyor-General  rules  that  Mr.  Brooks  be  allowed 
to  erase  his  name  from  said  protest,  for  Mr.  Throckmorton. 

Mr.  Sharp  objects  to  his  erasing  his  name,  as  it  is  altering 
the  records  of  this  office. 

J.  W.  Shanklin  here  enters  his  appearance  as  attorney 
for  S.  R.  Throckmorton. 

The  Surveyor-General  rules  that  Mr.  Brooks  must  define 
the  names  specifically  and  individually  for  whom  he  appears 
in  this  case. 

Mr.  Brooks  says  he  appears  for  the  claimants,  and  T.  B. 
Valentine. 

Mr.  Sharp  denies  his  right  to  appear  for  claimants,  and 
calls  for  his  authority  to  appear. 


Mr.  Sharp  moves  for  a  continuance  for  two  days,  that  all 
parties  may  show  their  authority,  and  protests  against  an}^ 
proceedings  till  it  is  done. 

Motion  granted,  and  case  continued  till  Thursday,  at  10 
o'clock  A.  M. 


Thursday,  July  29,  1875. 

All  parties  present. 

The  Surveyor-General  decides  that  Mr.  B.  S.  Brooks  has 
the  right  to  appear  for  the  claimants  as  to  the  land  which 
lies  OQtside  of  the  former  survey,  known  as  the  Mathewson 
Survey,  subject  to  and  under  the  contract  with  James  C. 
Bolton,  and  that  Mr.  Sol.  A.  Sharp  has  the  right  to  appear 
for  the  claimants  as  to  the  land  inside  of  the  said  survey. 

John  J.  Williams,  Esq.,  enters  his  appearance  as  of  coun- 
sel for  S.  K..  Throckmorton. 

B.  S.  Brooks  claims  the  right  to  appear  for  Mrs.  Deffe- 
bach  in  the  whole  case,  by  appointment  of  hei-  husband, 
now  present. 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Howard,  on  the  ground  that  Mrs. 
Deffebach  has  filed  a  notice  with  the  Surveyor-General, 
that  no  attorney  appears  for  her,  or  is  entitled  to  appear  for 
her,  in  this  controversy. 

Sol.  A.  Sharp  claims  to  appear  for  John  J.  Bead,  Inez 
Deffebach,  Ylaria  Read  Lyford,  claimants  of  the  Rancho 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio. 

Walter  Van  Dyke  appears  in  person  on  behalf  of  the  TJ. 
S.,  the  preemptors,  and  General  J.  M.  Schofield. 

J.  J.  Williams,  on  behalf  of  S.  R.  Throckmorton,  moves 
that  the  present  survey  be  so  modified  as  to  include  the  land 
sold  by  the  claimants  to  S.  R.  Throckmorton,  which  he 
contends  is  within  the  limits  of  the  juridical  possession. 

Objected  to  by  S.  Ij.  Cutter,  attorney  for  Edwin  Gardner, 
on  the  ground  that  the  survey  is  not  within  the  juridical 
possession. 

J.  B.  Southard,  attorney  for  Wormouth,  makes  the  same 
objection,  and  the  further  objection,  that  the  deed  to 
Throckmorton  was  made  with  the  view  and  in  reference  to 
the  line  established  by  the  present  survey,  and  not  with  a 
view  of  extending  the  line  further  north-west  than  it  is  at 
present,  and  that  said  deed  was  made  by  way  of  com- 
promise. 

Messrs.  Mullen  &  Hyde,  attorneys  for  certain  parties,  file 
herewith  a  written  motion  to  discontinue  all  further  pro- 


ceeclings,  on  the  ground  that  no  legal  survey  lias  been 
made  by  the  U.  S.  Surveyor-General. 

Mr.  Sharp  objects  to  the  motion,  that  it  is  not  in  time^ 
and  is  defective  in  its  allegations,  and  asks  that  the  survey 
be  now  confirmed,  as  it  now  stands. 

The  Surveyor-General  rules  that  the  survey  in  this  case 
is  not  vitiated  or  illegal  on  account  of  the  adoption  by  the 
Deputy  Surveyor  of  the  tide  land  survey,  without  any  actual 
survey  in  the  field.  All  of  the  counsel  in  the  case,  except 
Mr.  Howard  and  Mr.  Brooks,  object  to  the  ruhng. 

Here  the  Attorney-General  adjourns  the  case  to  await  the 
decision  on  the  above  point,  with  ten  days  from  this  day  to 
file  briefs,  and  fifteen  days'  notice  to  be  given  counsel  of  the 
decision,  to  prepare  for  trial,  and  of  the  date  when  this 
investigation  wnll  be  continued. 

This  adjournment  is  agreed  to  by  all  the  attorneys,  except 
Mr.  Howard,  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  the  opinion  of  the 
Department  on  the  above  question  of  survey. 

Mr.  How^ard,  for  his  clients  and  Mr.  Sharp* s,  excepts  to 
the  ruling  and  continuance,  and  appeals  directly  to  the 
Commissioner  on  the  merits  of  the  survey,  and  asks  that  all 
the  papers  and  plat,  and  ruling  of  the  Surveyor-General  be 
sent  up. 


October  15,  1875. 
Notified  all  parties  to  appear  Tuesday,  October  26,  1875^ 
at  10  A.  M. 


Tuesday,  26th  October,  1875. 
Case  called  and  continued  by  consent,  to  lOJ  oclock  a.  m. 
to-morrow,  October  27,  1875. 


Wei>nesdaYj  October  27,  1875,  at  10 J  o'clock  a.  m. 

All  the  parties  being  present,  the  case  is  called,  and  the 
examination  commenced. 

J.  B.  How^^ard  reads  and  files  a  motion  that  the  case  be 
sent  up  to  the  Commissioner  General  Land  Oflice,  without 
the  taking  of  any  testimony. 

The  Surveyor-General  denies  the  motion.  Counsel  ex- 
cepts to  the  ruling. 

Sol.  A.  Sharp,  Esq.,  counsel  for  certain  claimants,  moves 
that  all  the  objections  filed  be  struck  out,  on  the  ground^ 
tlmt  they  were  filed  too  Me. 


The  motion  denied  by  the  U.  S.  Surveyor-General. 

Counsel  excepts  to  the  ruling. 

Cjim^el  Sol.  A.  Sharp  objects  to  any  testimony  being 
read  in  opposition  to  the  survey,  on  the  ground  that  it  is 
too  late. 

Objection  overruled  by  the  U.  S.  Surveyor-General.  Coun- 
sel for  claimants  excepts  to  the  ruling. 

Messrs.  Mullen  &  Hyde  offer  a  written  motion,  asking 
that  the  survey  be  sent  to  the  Commissioner,  and  that  all 
proceedings  be  suspended  in  this  oiiice,  until  a  decision  of 
the  Commissioner  General  Land  Oflice,  and  his  reply  be 
received. 

J.  B.  Howard  files  an  objection  to  Messrs.  Mullen  & 
Hyde's  motion. 

Mr.  Sharp  objects  to  the  Mullen  &  Hj^de  motion,  as  com- 
ing too  late,  and  being  without  any  authority  of  law.  Also, 
that  it  is  inconsistent.  He  tiles  them  as  objections  to  the 
survey,  and  says,  at  the  same  time,  there  is  no  survey. 
Also,  that  it  is  incumbering  the  record,  being  in  the  form 
of  an  argument  addressed  to  the  Commissioner  at  Wash- 
ington. 

J.  B.  Howard  objects  to  said  motion  because  the  U.  S. 
Surveyor-General  has  no  jurisdiction,  as  both  parties  rep- 
resented by  Mullen  &  Hyde.  2d.  Because  said  parties  are 
not  disclosed.  3d.  Because  said  parties  do  not  claim  or 
show  any  interest  in  the  land  embraced  within  the  survey. 
4th.  Because  the  objections  are  not  filed  in  time.  5th.  Be- 
cause no  party  to  the  record,  and  showing  any  interest,  has 
objected  to  the  form  of  survey.  And,  6th.  Because  the  case 
is  closed. 

B.  S.  Brooks  oVgects  that  the  matter  of  the  Mullen  &  Hyde 
communication  presents  no  ground  for  a  continuance  in 
this  case. 

The  motion  by  Messrs.  Mullen  &  Hyde  for  a  continuance, 
is  overruled  by  the  IT.  S.  Surveyor-General,  and  orders  the 
paper  and  plat  filed,  but  refuse  to  respond  to  the  proceed- 
ings.    To  which  ruling  counsel  excepts. 

J.  B.  Howard  files  a  motion  to  strike  out  the  papers  filed 
by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  for  the  reasons  on  file. 

Mr.  Mullen  now  having,  by  his  afiGidavits,  shown  that  he 
represents  parties  not  entitled  to  appear  in  this  case,  Mr. 
Brooks  objects  to  his  filing  his  afiidavits,  or  appearing  at  all 
in  this  case,  for  the  parties  therein  named. 

The  Surveyor-General  reserves  his  ruling  on  the  matter 
of  Messrs.  Mullen  &   Hyde's  affidavit,  until  10  A.  m,  to- 


morrow,  to  allow  Mr.  Mullen  to  tile  his  autliorit}^  to  appear 
in  this  case. 

J.  W.  Shanklin,  attorney  for  S.  R.  Throckmorton,  and 
8.  L.  Cutter,  attorney  for  Edwin  Gardner,  and  Peter  Gard- 
ner, for  himself,  here  enter  their  protest  against  the  order 
of  the  U.  S.  Surveyor-General  to  take  the  testimony  in  the 
•case  at  this  time,  on  the  ground  that  the  preliminary  ques- 
tion of  the  validity  of  the  survey  should  be  first  settled  by 
the  Commissioner  General  Land  Office. 

Tlie  Surveyor-General  directs  that  the  testimony  of  the 
witnesses  of  contestant  T.  13.  Valentine  be  first  taken  in 
this  case. 

T.  B.  Valentine  calls  as  a  witness  in  his  behalf,  Candelario 
Valencia,  who  being  duly  sworn  and  examined  by  Louis 
Prince,  sworn  as  an  interpreter  in  this  case. 

Q.  1.  What  is  your  name,  residence  and  occupation? 
A.  My  name  is  Candelario  Valencia;  residence.  Mission 
Dolores,  which  is  in  San  Francisco.  My  age  is  70  years, 
and  occupation  none. 

Q.  2.  Did  you  know  Juan  Read  in  his  lifetime,  and  if 
so  from  what  time?  A.  Yes.  I  have  known  him  since 
forty  or  fifty  years  ago. 

Q.  3.  Did  you  know  the  Rancho  Corte  del  Presidio,  and 
if  so,  from  what  time?  A.  I  served  as  a  soldier  in  San 
Francisco,  and  had  known  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio  ten  (10)  years  prior  to  my  entering  as  a  soldier. 

Q.  4.  When  did  you  enter  service  as  a  soldier,  and  at 
what  point  were  you  stationed  ?  A.  I  served  as  a  perma- 
nent soldier  at  the  Presidio  of  San  Francisco  for  ten  years 
and  four  months.     I  do  not  remember  the  year. 

Q.  5.  Were  you  stationed  there  as  a  soldier  at  the  time 
the  Bear  Flag  was  raised  in  Sonoma,  in  1846?  A.  No.  I 
was  in  San  Francisco. 

Q.  6.  How  long  before  that  had  you  been  discharged  ? 
A.    About  ten  or  eleven  years. 

Q.  7.  How  did  you  know  Juan  Read  ?  What  was  your 
intimacy  with  him  ?     A.   He  w^as  a  nephew  of  my  wife. 

Q.  8.  Did  you  ever  visit  him  at  hi&  Rancho  Corte  Ma- 
dera del  Presidio,  while  he  resided  there?  A.  Yes.  I 
went  to  see  him,  during  his  lifetime,  at  the  mill  which  he 
had  on  his  rancho. 

Q.  9.  How  frequently  did  you  visit  him  ?  A.  We  were 
invited  to  the  Rodios  then  every  year. 

Q.  10.  How  long  did  you  stay  there  on  those  occasions? 
A.   From  eight  to  fifteen  days,  while  the  Rodios  lasted. 


Q.  11.  Why  were  ^'-ou  invited  to  the  Rodios?  A.  We 
were  invited  as  members  of  the  family,  to  assist  him  in 
marking  cattle. 

Q.  12.  Where  did  you  stay  during  those  visits  ?  A.  At 
the  adobe  house  of  Juan  Read. 

Q.  13.  Do  you  know  the  peninsula  which  fronts  Angels 
Island,  and  is  connected  with  the  main  land  by  a  narrow 
neck  ?     A.   I  know  it.     It  was  called  the  Point  Tiburon. 

Q.  14.  At  the  time  you  speak  of,  during  the  life  of 
Read,  was  this  peninsula  occupied,  and  if  so,  how  ?  A.  It 
was  occupied  by  Read,  with  cattle  pastured  in  it. 

Q.  15.  Here  the  official  plat  of  the  survey  of  the  Rancho 
Corte  de  Madera,  now  in  question,  is  shown  the  witness,  and 
he  is  asked  to  point  out  the  land  of  which  he  is  speaking  ? 
A.  The  point  projecting  into  Richardson's  Bay  is  called 
"  Punta  Almejas,"  and  this  point  is  called  Point  Tiburon. 
The  point  designated  as  Point  Tiburon,  is  the  tract  shown 
on  the  plat  of  the  official  survey  as  "Peninsula  Island." 

The  Counsel  for  the  U.  8.  here  objects  that  this  is  not  the 
best  evidence  of  the  fact. 

Q.  16.  Was  any  special,  particular  use,  made  of  this 
Peninsula  Tiburon  ?  A.  It  was  occupied  by  cattle,  which 
were  taken  from  said  peninsula  to  the  Rodio,  for  the  purpose 
of  marking. 

Q.  17.  Vyas  any  particular  class  or  kind  of  cattle  kept 
on  this  island  ?  A.  There  were  about  a  hundred  head  of 
cattle  kept  there. 

Q.  18.  Were  the  cattle  on  the  peninsula  separated  in  any 
way  from  those  on  the  other  part  of  the  rancho?  A.  They 
went  in  and  out.  Some  remained  inside,  and  some  went 
outside. 

Q.  19.  Then  I  understand  you  that  the  cattle  on  this 
peninsula,  and  on  the  rancho,  were  not  separated,  but  passed 
in  and  out  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Cutter,  as  leading. 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  20.     Do  you  know  the  Arroyo  J  olon?     A.   'No. 

i}.  21.  Was  there  any  fence  or  bars  on  the  Tiburon,  or 
causeway  leading  to  it?     A.   There  were  none. 


Cross-  Examination, 
Here  adjourned  for  one  hour,  for  lunch. 


OrosS' Examination . 

Q.  1.  Do  you  understand  this  map,  (the  official  plat  is 
here  shown  to  witness)?  A.  I  understand  it  as  it  is  presented 
to  me. 

Q.  2.  Can  you  read  anythins:  on  this  map  ?  A.  Yerv 
little. 

Q.  3.  Did  you  use  your  spectacles  this  morning  when 
you  testified  ?     A.  Ko. 

Q.  4.  Can  you  see  well  without  your  spectacles  ?  A.  No  ; 
not  very  well. 

Q.  5.  Could  3'ou  see  well  enough  to  understand  the  ma[> 
without  your  spectacles  ?  A.  Ko  ;  now  I  can  with  m^^ 
spectacles. 

Q.  6.  Did  any  person  point  out  anything  on  this  or  a 
similar  map  to  you,  before  you  testified  this  morning  ?  A. 
No. 

Q.  7.  Which  point  do  you  say  is  Point  Tiburon,  after 
looking  at  the  map  through  your  glasses  ?  A.  Now,  that  I 
can  see  with  my  spectacles,  I  find  that  this  is  the  Point  of 
Tiburon,  pointing  to  the  most  eastern  point  on  the  plat,  and 
is  marked  "Point  of  Tiburon  "  on  the  plat,  and  this  was 
the  Potrero  Tiburon  connected  with  the  main  land,  point- 
ing to  the  "Peninsula  Island,"    shown  on  the  official  plat. 

Q.  7,  repeated.  A.  Witness  points  to  the  whole  eastern 
end  of  the  tract  embraced  in  the  survey  marked  "  Point 
Tiburon." 

Q.  8.  Did  the  tide  ever  ebb  and  flow  over  the  narrow 
strip  connecting  Tiburon  Potrero  with  the  main  land  ? 
A.  The  water  comes  up  to  on  both  sides  but  never  passed 
over  the  neck. 

Q.  9.  Was  there  any  fence  across  that  strip?  A.  Yes; 
there  was  about  half  way,  to  keep  the  cattle  and  stock  in 
on  the  place  marked  "  Peninsula  Island." 

Q.  10.  Was  you  ever  in  the  Potrero  Tiburon;  if  so^ 
how  often  ?  A.  Yes  ;  every  year  we  went  there  for  the 
purpose  of  taking  out  cattle  for  marking  or  killing  them. 


Cross- Examination  by  S.  L.  Cutter. 

Q.  1.  Have  you  had  any  conversation  with  any  person 
concerning  this  map  during  recess  to-day  ?     A.    No. 

Q.  2.  Have  you  had  any  conversation  concerning  the 
land  in  question  to-day  ?     A.   I  have  not. 


9 

Q.  3.  Have  you  had  any  conversation  concerning  Point 
Tiburon  to-day  ?     A.   No. 

Q.  4.  Has  any  one  spoken  to  you  concerning  a  fence 
across  the  isthmus  to-day?     A.   ]S"o,  sir. 

Q.  5.  Will  you  point  out  on  that  map  the  place  you  des- 
ignated in  your  testimony  this  morning  as  Point  'f  iburon  ? 
A.  This  is  Point  Tiburon,  and  this  is  Potrero  Tiburom 
(VV^itness  points  to  the  places  designated  as  such  on  the 
official  map.) 

Q.  5^  repeated.  A.  This,  pointing  to  Peninsula  Island^ 
belongs  to  Point  Tiburon. 

Q.  5,  repeated.  A.  I  did  not  see  well ;  now  that  I  have 
my  spectacles  on  ;  now,  that  I  can  see,  I  can  point  to  the 
correct  spot. 

Q.  6.  Is  what  you  say  now  derived  from  your  knowl- 
edge of  the  land,  or  from  what  you  see  laid  down  on  this 
map  ?  A^  Kow,  that  I  see  well,  I  say  that  this  is  the  Po- 
trero, (pointing  to  the  Peninsula  Island)  appertaining  or  be- 
longing to  Point  Tiburon. 

Q.  7.  Where  was  the  house  in  which  Juan  Read  lived 
\n  1835  pointed  out  on  the  map  with  a  pencil  ?  A.  Wit- 
ness pointing  to  the  Estero,  says,  here  is  an  Estero  ;  the 
house  w^as  on  the  margin  of  the  Estero.  The  Estero  he 
designates  is  on  the  extreme  south-western  corner  of  the 
official  survey  in  question. 

Q.  8.  Was  there  more  than  one  Estero  near  the  house  ? 
A.  This  water  reaches  verj^  nearly  to  where  the  house  was. 
Witness  pointed  to  the  arm  of  the  bay  above  the  word 
^'  Mount''  on  the  plat. 

Q.  9.  Do  you  remember  if  there  was  one  or  more  streams 
of  fresh  water  near  the  house  ?  A.  There  was  a  stream 
ran  up  from  the  bay  near  the  house. 

Q.  10.  How  far  from  the  house  at  its  nearest  point? 
A.  About  200  yards,  more  or  less.  The  Embarcado  was 
about  500  yards  distant  from  the  house,  more  or  less. 

Q.  11.  On  which  side  of  the  house  was  the  Estero— 
east  or  west?  A.  The  Embarcadero  was  in  sight.  You 
could  see  it  from  the  house.     It  was  on  the  east  side. 

Q.  12.  How  far  north  of  the  house  did  the  rancho  ex- 
tend tow^ard  the  mountain  ?  A.  I  do  not  know.  I  can 
not  tell. 

Q.  13.  Have  you  seen  the  place  ^vhere  the  house  stood 
in  1835,  recently  ?     A.    About  three  months  ago. 

Q.  14.  What  is  there  at  that  point  at  this  time.  A.  The 
•same  house,  and  an  orchards 


10 

Q.  15.     Do  you  mean  the  same  house  that  stood  there  in 
1835  ?     A.    Yes,  the  same  house. 


Be-Direct  Examination, 

Q.  1.  Describe  more  particularly  the  fence  that  was 
across  the  neck  of  land  connecting  the  Potrero  with  the 
main  land  ?  A.  About  halfway  from  the  main  land  to  the 
peninsula. 

This  question  is  objected  to  by  Walter  Van  D^'ke,  Dis- 
trict Attorney,  on  the  s^round  that  they  seek  to  include 
lands  not  embraced  in  the  survey. 

Q.  2.     What  is  this  fence  macle  out  of  ? 

Same  objections  as  to  last  question. 

A.  The  fence  was  made  of  redwood.  It  had  an  opening 
closed  by  bars. 

Q.  3.  How  far  on  each  side  of  the  bars  did  the  fence 
extend  ? 

Same  objection. 

A.     From  water  to  water. 

Q.  4.  In  what  year  did  you  first  see  these  bars  there  ? 
A.    I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  5.  Do  you  remember  to  have  seen  it,  at  any  time, 
any  different  during  Juan  Read's  lifetime  ?  A.  No,  I  do 
not  remember. 

Q.  6.  Did  the  fence  exist  there  the  first  time  you  ever 
saw  it  ?     A.    Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  7.  Do  you  know  the  Arroyo  Corte  Madera  del  Pre- 
sidio ?    A.   I  do  not. 

Q.  8.  Was  there  an  arroyo  came  down  into  the  estero 
you  have  spoken  of?  A.  Yes.  That  is  the  arroyo  that 
comes  down  from  the  Sierra,  on  one  side  of  the  house. 

Q.  9.  Was  there  a  Corte  Madera  on  that  arroyo  ?  A. 
There  was  a  saw-mill  there. 

Q.  10.  Question  9  repeated.  A.  Yes.  The  deceased 
cut  timber  for  fences  and  corrals. 

Q.  11.  Do  you  know^  the  Punta  de  Sausal  ?  A.  Yes. 
It  is  on  one  side  of  the  house. 

Q.  12.  How  near  was  that  sausal  to  the  arroyo  ?  A.  All 
along  the  arroyo. 

Q.  13.  How  near  was  the  Punta  de  Sausal  to  the  estero? 
A.    I  cannot  tell  the  difference.     It  was  not  far  off. 


11 


Re-Cross-Examinatmi  hy  J.  B.  Howard^  Esq. 

Q.  1.  Was  there  a  redwood  forest  near  the  house  of 
Head?     A.   Yes. 

Q.  2.  Were  there  redwood  trees  above  the  house,  a 
little  to  the  left,  as  you  go  from  the  house?  A.  There  was 
at  that  time.     They  may  have  been  cut  down  since. 

Q.  3.  How  far  from  the  house  were  the  redwood  trees  ? 
A.     About  one  hundred  ^^ards  from  the  house  of  Read. 

his 

CANDELARIO  M  VALENCIA. 

mark 

This  witness  says  he  knows  how  to  write,  but  his  hand  is 
disabled,  and  he  signs  with  his  mark.         Commissioner. 
Here  adjourned  till  10  a.  m.  to-morrow. 


Thursday,  Oct.  28,  1875. 
Met  pursuant  to  adjournment.     All  present. 

Jose  Ramon  Valencia,  a  witness  called  by  T.  B.  Valen- 
tine, being  first  duly  sworn  deposes  and  says  : 

Q.  1.  What  is  your  name,  age,  residence,  occupation  ? 
A.  My  name,  Jose  Ramon  Valencia ;  my  age  is  45  ;  resi- 
dence, San  Rafael,  Marin  Co.,  Cal.  ;  occupation,  farmer. 

Q.  2.  When  were  you  born,  and  where  have  you  resided 
since  your  birth,  and  how  long  at  each  place  respectively  ? 
A.  I  was  born  in  the  city  of  San  Francisco,  Cal.;  I  was 
born  in  1829  ;  I  have  resided  at  the  Presidio  of  San  Fran- 
cisco till  1840,  when  we  removed  to  the  Mission  Dolores  in 
San  Francisco;  I  lived  at  the  Mission  Dolores  until  1865  ; 
I  at  that  date  removed  to  Marin  Co.,  Cal,  and  have  resided 
in  said  county  continuously  ever  since  said  date. 

Q.  3.  Did  you  know  Juan  Read  in  his  lifetime  ;  when 
and  how  did  you  become  acquainted  with  him,  and  what 
was  the  extent  of  your  intimacy  with  him  ?  A.  I  knew 
Juan  Read  in  his  lifetime ;  I  became  acquainted  with  him 
in  1835  or  1836 ;  he  was  married  to  my  aunt,  Ylaria  San- 
chez, at  the  time  we  were  living  at  the  Presidio. 

Q.  4.  Was  Juan  Read  at  that  time  occupying  the  Rancho 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ?     A.   Yes  ;  he  was. 

Q.  5.  What  was  the  extent  of  your  intimacy  with  Juan 
Read  ?  A.  I  knew  him  well ;  I  was  living  with  him  at  his 
rancho  at  times  ;  he  often  came  to  the  Presidio  and  stopped 


12 

there  while  I  Wcis  living  there  ;  I  often  went  to  his  rancho, 
to  the  rodeos,  and  assisted   him  in  marking  and  killing  catle. 

Q.  6.  Did  you  know  the  Hancho  Corte  Mad"fera  del  Pre- 
sidio; when  and  how  did  you  become  acquainted  it,  and 
what  was  the  extent  of  \^our  knowledge  respecting  it?  A. 
I  knew  said  rancho;  I  became  acquainted  with  it  first  in 
1839  or  1840  ;  I  became  acquainted  with  it  by  rodeoing  cattle 
on  it;  I  knew  well  enough  to  describe  every  part  of  it, 
almost. 

Q.  7.  Did  you  know  the  place  called  Tiburon  ?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  8.     Where  was  it  ?     A.   It  was  in  Marin  County. 

Q.  9.  Point  it  out  on  the  official  map  in  contest  ?  A. 
The  witness  put  his  hand  on  the  extreme  eastern  point  of 
the  survey,  and  moves  his  hand  along  the  survey  and  says  it 
extends  up  to  the  H.)lon,  to  the  Corte  Madera;  it  is  called 
Corte  Madera  de  San  Pablo. 

Q.  10.  Do  you  know  a  point  which,  at  that  time,  Was 
known  as  the  Punta  del  Tiburon  ?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  11.  Which  was  it?  A.  It  was  all  the  point  sur- 
rounded by  the  bay. 

Q.  12.  Did  you  know  the  creek  called  Holon  ;  if  so,  how 
is  it  designated  on  the  survey  ?     A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  13.  How  is  it  designated  on  this  map  ?  A.  It  is 
marked  on  the  official  map  "Arroyo  Holon;"  it  runs  from 
Tamalpais  Mountain  and  discharges  itself  into  a  creek  at 
the  end  of  the  Arroyo  Holon.  The  creek  goes  up  to  Ross^ 
Landing  ;  this  creek  empties  into  the  bay. 

Q.  14.  Do  you  know  the  peninsula  fronting  Angel  Island, 
and  connected  with  the  main  land  of  the  rancho,  which  is 
marked  on  the  official  map  as  Peninsula  Island  ?  A.  Yes, 
I  know  it. 

Q,  15.  When  and  how  did  you  become  acquainted  with 
it  ?  A.  It  was  in  1839  or  1840.  I  became  acquainted  with 
it  by  puttins:  cattle  and  horses  on  it  for  Juan  Head. 

Q.  16.  Was  there  any  special  use  made  of  that  tract  ? 
A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  17.  What  use  was  it  put  to  ?  A.  It  was  used  to  put 
in  some  fat  cattle  and  some  horses. 

Q.  18.  Was  it  in  any  way  enclosed,  if  so,  how  and  by 
whom  ?  Yes,  sir.  By  a  fence  made  by  Juan  Read,  and 
afterwards  it  was  inclosed  by  myself  and  one  of  the  De 
Harro  family. 

Q.  19.  Was  the  fence  you  speak  of  there  when  you  first 
saw  this  piece  of  land — 'this  peninsula  ?     A.    Yes,  sir^ 


13 

Q.  20.     Where  was  this  fence  ?     A.    The  fence  I  first 
saw  was  near  the  main  land  of  the  peninsula. 

Q.  21.  AVhat  was  the  means  of  access  to  the  peninsula  ? 
A>    There  were  bars  in  this  fence* 

Q.  22.  When  did  you  and  the  J)e  Ilarro  build  the  fence? 
Where  was  it,  and  for  whom  did  you  erect  it?  A.  I  think 
it  was  in  1845.  It  was  at  the  narrowest  point  of  the  neck. 
The  old  fence  had  become  broken,  and  we  put  it  there,  as  it 
took  less  fence.  We  were  doing  the  work  for  the  interest 
of  the  rancho.  Francisco  De  Harro  was  the  mayor  domo. 
He  was  a  son  of  Francisco  De  Harro,  the  Alcalde.  He  was 
one  of  the  twins  afterwards  killed  in  the  war. 

Q.  23.  By  what  name,  if  any,  was  this  piece  of  land 
designated  at  that  time?     A.   It  was  called  El  Potrero. 

Q"  24.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  Potrero,  as 
used  by  the  Californians  ?  A.  It  means  field  ;  an  enclos- 
ure where  n^ou  put  in  stock  or  cattle. 

Q»  25^  Are  potreros  usually  used  for  a  particular  class  of 
cattle  ?  If  so,  what  class  ?  A.  It  is  used  to  put  in  some  fat 
cattle  that  are  to  be  killed  every  year.  It  is  used  to  put  in 
the  bell-mare  with  the  horses.  Also  to  keep  the  tame  cows 
when  they  have  them. 

Q.  26.  In  what  manner  were  the  salt  marshes  bordering 
this  rancho  used,  and  by  whom  ?  A.  tt  was  used  by  Juan 
Read's  stock,  and  for  a  landing  on  some  of  the  creeks  by 
Juan  Read. 

Q.  27.  Did  you  know  the  Corte  Madera  del  San  Pablo? 
If  so  where  was  that?  A.  It  was  at  the  creek  called  the 
Arroyo  Hoi  on. 

Q.  28.  Did  you  know  the  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ? 
If  so,  where  was  it  ?  A.  Yes.  It  is  marked  on  this  map 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio. 

Q.  29.     It  was  on  that  arroyo  ?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  30.  Did  you  know  the  Punta  de  Sausal,  lying  near 
the  estero,  east  of  the  house  ?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  31.  How  is  it  designated  on  the  map  ?  A.  It  is 
dose  to  the  entrance  of  this  creek.  Witness  points  to  a 
point  marked  "  C.  M.  P.  177,"  on  the  ofiicial  plat. 

Q.  32.  How  far  did  that  sausal  extend  inland,  and  how 
near  to  the  arroyo  ?  A.  It  extended  all  along  the  creek, 
for  a  distance  of,  I  think,  a  mile  and  a  half 

Q.  33.  Did  it  extend  as  much  as  a  mile  originally,  when 
you  first  knew  it  ?  A.  It  might  have  been  as  much  as  a 
mile. 

Q.  34.     How  near  did   that   reach   to   the   edge   of  the 


14 

forest   of  redwoods,  called  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio?     A. 
They  were  close  by. 

Q.  35.  Did  you  know  a  peak  called  "Palmas,"  if  so,  i)y 
what  other  name  is  it  known  ?  A.  It  is  called  now  ■■'  Ta- 
malpais." 

Q.  36.  Did  you  know^the  remains  of  a  Rancheria  called 
"Animas,"  if  so,  where  was  it,  w^ith  respect  to  the  honse  of 
Juan  Read  and  the  creek  and  sausal  ?  A.  Yes,  sir;  it  lies 
between  the  house  and  the  creek;  it  w^as  closer  to  the  creek 
than  to  the  house ;  the  creek  now  washes  the  bank  of  it, 
bat  it  did  not  then  in  1839  or  18 iO,  but  was  close  to  it. 

Q.  37.  Did  yon  know  the  Punta  Caballos  ;  if  so,  by 
what  name  is  it  now  kno\vn  ?  A.  I  know  the  point,  it  is  in 
the  Rancho  Saucelito. 

Q.  38.     Do  you  know  Luui  Point?     A.    Ko,  sir. 

Q.  39.  How  did  Point  Cavallos  lie  with  respect  to  Fort 
Point  ?  A.  Directly  opposite;  I  have  not  been  there  since 
they  have  been  given  their  new  names  ;  but  Point  Cavallos 
w^as  directly  opposite  the  old  Spanish  Fort. 

Q.  40.  How  was  the  Potrero  connected  with  the  main 
land  of  the  Rancho  ?  A.  By  a  natural  causeway  of  sand 
and  gravel. 

Q.  41.  Do  you  know  of  any  of  that  gravel  having  been 
taken  away  from  there  ?  A.  I  don't  know  of  my  own 
knowledge. 

Q.  42.  Was  that  causeway  ever  overflowed  by  the  tide  ? 
A.   No,  sir. 

Here  the  proceedings  are  suspended  to  hear  a  ruling  on 
Messrs.  Mullen  &  Hy'de's  application  to  be  heard  in  this 
case. 

The  Surveyor- General  holds  that  Messrs.  Mullen  have 
a  right  to  appear  and  represent  his  client ;  but  the  protest 
tiled  by  Messrs.  Mullen  &  Hyde,  having  been  filed  after  the 
expiration  of  the  90  days,  the  Surveyor-General  rules  that 
even  under  this  circumstance,  Messrs.  Mullen  &  Hyde  can 
and  may  appear  for  his  clients  and  object  to  the  surveyor's 
question.     To  which  ruling  counsel  for  claimants  excepts. 

Messrs.  Mullen  &  Hyde  \vithdraw  their  appearance  for  A. 
F.De  Silva,  he  appearing  in  person  herein. 

Mr.  J.  B.  Howard  withdraws  his  appearance  tor  Mr.  A. 
F.  De  Silvia,  he  appearing  in  person  herein. 

Messrs.  Mullen  &  Hyde  consent  to  the  withdrawal  of 
the  objections  filed  July  29,  1875,  so  far  as  Antonio  F.  De 
Silva  is  concerned,  and  Mr.  De  Silva  insists  upon  his  objec- 
tions herein  filed  in  this  case.  May  1875. 


15 


Cross- Examination  of  J.  R,  Valencia: 

Q.  1.  Bj  U.  S.  Attorney. — Did  Juan  Eead  have  Penin- 
sula  Island  occupied  with  stock  since  the  American  occupa- 
tion?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

(i  2.  How  long  since  ?  A.  Up  to  1848,  I  was  then 
mayor-domo  of  the  rancho  at  that  time. 

Q.  3.  Has  it  been  occupied  adversely  since  you  left 
there?  A.  I  do  not  know;  I  left  there  in  1848;  I  don't 
know  about  its  occupatian  since  I  left. 

Q.  5.  Did  you  ever  see  the  diseno  of  this  rancho  ?  A. 
No,  sir. 

Q.  5.  Do  you  know  the  juridical  possession  of  this 
rancho?  A.  I  was  not  there  and  don't  know  anything 
about  it. 

Q.  6.  Did  Juan  Read  ever  point  out  to  you  the  juridical 
possession  ?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  7.  By  Mr.  Cutter?  AVhere  did  Juan  Bead's  house 
he  occupied  stand?  Point  it  out  on  the  map.  I  mean  the 
old  house.  A.  When  I  first  went  there  he  had  a  frame 
building.  It  was  quite  near — about  fifteen  feet — from  the 
point  marked  Juan  Bead's  house  on  the  ofiicial  map.  He 
then  built  an  adobe  kitchen  to  that,  and  afterwards  he  built 
the  present  adobe  house. 

Q.  8.  Which  way  did  the  land  slope  from  that  house  ? 
A.  Towards  the  city.  Towards  the  bay.  Towards  the 
rancheria. 

Q.  9.  Which  direction  was  the  rancheria  from  the 
house  ?  A.  Towards  the  west ;  between  the  house  and 
the  creek. 

Q.  10.  How  near  were  any  redwoods  to  the  rancheria? 
A.  There  were  a  few  redwoods  in  the  willows.  I  could 
not  give  the  distance.     It  might  be  a  half  a  mile  or  more. 

Q.  11.  Do  you  remember  the  position  of  a  gate  near 
the  rancheria  ?  A.  Yes.  There  was  a  gate  cross  the 
lane, 

Q.  12.  State  if  there  were  a  clump  of  redwood  trees 
near  that  gate.     A.    I  do  not  recollect  of  any. 

Q.  13.  By  Mr.  Van  Dyke.  The  question  6  I  intended 
to  ask  you  was,  Did  Juan  Bead  ever  point  out  to  you  the 
monuments  of  the  juridical  possession  ?  A.  I  never  saw 
any.     He  just  pointed  out  certain  creeks  as  boundaries. 

Q.  14.  By  J.  W.  Shanklin. — Please  to  state  what  creeks 
he  23ointed  out  to  you  as  boundaries. 


1^ 

Objected  to  by  J.  B.  Howard,  as  being  incompeteut,  im- 
material, and  not  the  best  evidence. 

Objected  to  by  Sol.  A.  Sharp,  Esq.,  on  same  gromids. 

Question  withdrawn. 

Q.  15.     Where  is  Point  Cavallos,  and  what  is  its  extent  ? 

Objected  to  for  same  reasons  as  last  question. 

A.  It  is  on  the  Saucelito  Rancho.  I  don't  know  its 
extent.     It  points  towarns  the  Presidio  of  San  Francisco. 

Q.  16.  What  does  the  word  Tiburon  mean  in  English  ? 
A.     It  means  "  Shark." 

Q.  17.  Why  did  they  call  it  Shark  Point?  A.  Because 
there  were  plenty  of  sharks  at  that  place. 

AVitness  designates  the  place  as  "Haccoon  Straits." 

Q.  18.  Do  you  know  of  a  high  hill  called  Mount  Tiburon, 
on  this  peninsula  ?  If  so,  point  it  out  on  the  map.  A.  oSi  o, 
sir.     I  don't  know  it  by  that  name. 

Q.  19.  Where  is  the  high  hill  you  speak  of,  and  how 
far  does  it  extend  ?  A.  There  is  a  ridge  commencing  at 
the  extreme  eastern  point,  and  extending  along  the  Tiburon 
to  the  black  line  (township  line).  The  highest  point  is  close 
to  Station  :N'o.  537. 

Q.  20.  By  Capt.  Mullen.  Do  you  know  of  a  line  of 
fence  that  formerly  ran  across  the  Point  Tiburon,  in  1839, 
1840,  or  about  that  time  ?  A.  The  only  fence  I  ever  saw 
was  the  fence  across  the  neck  of  land  connecting  Peninsula 
Island  with  the  main  land.  There  was  a  fence  built  across 
the  land,  from  one  side  of  the  marsh  land  to  the  other,  in 
1858  or  1859.     I  do  not  recollect  verj^  well. 

Q.  21.  Do  you  know  of  any  fence  in  that  vicinity  earlier 
than  1859  ?  A.  Ko.  There  was  no  other  fence,  except  the 
corral,  near  the  rodio  ground. 

Q.  22.  Was  not  there  a  fence  earlier  than  1855,  and 
before  1848  ?  A.  No.  I  never  saw  any  fence  there,  except 
the  corral  at  the  house,  corral  at  the  rodio  ground,  and  the 
fence  at  the  narrow  neck  connecting  the  potrero  with  the 
main  land. 

He-Direct 

Q.  1.  What  were  the  boundaries  of  the  juridical  posses, 
si  on,  as  pointed  out  to  you  by  Juan  Read? 

Objected  to  by  Howard,  as  incompetent,  irrelevant  and 
immaterial. 

A.  It  was  the  creek  called  the  "  Arroyo  Hoi  on,"  another 
creek  called  the  "Arroyo  Coyote,"  the  orders  from  him 
were  to  rodeo  the  cattle  within   these  two  boundaries  :  this 


17 

Point  of  Tiburon  was  included  in  tliese  boundaries ;  this 
Point  Tiburon  was  surrounded  b3^the  bay. 

Q.  2.  Did  he  point  out  to  jou  the  boundaries  on  the  other 
two  sides  ?  A.  Ko ;  he  pointed  out  to  me  these  two 
creeks. 

Q.  Did  he  point  out  to  yon  '^Raccoon  Straits"  as  one 
of  the  boundaries?  A.  Yes;  he  pointed  out  the  place 
marked  ''  Raccoon  Straits  "  on  the  map. 

Q.  By  Mr.  Gardner. — -Please  point  out  the  Arroyo  Coy- 
ote on  this  map  ?     A   It  is  not  on  this  map. 

Chas.  Brown  is  called  by  B.  S.  Brooks,  and  being  first 
duly  sworn,  deposes  and  says  :  My  ao:e  is  61  years;  resi- 
dence, San  Francisco  ;  occupation,  real  estate  dealer. 

Q.  1.  What  country  are  you  a  native  of?  w^hen  did  you 
come  to  California?  how  long-  have  you  lived  in  each  place 
respectively  ?  A.  Born  in  ISTew  York  ;  come  to  California 
in  1829;  have  lived  in  San  Francisco,  Cah,  since  1849,  con- 
tinuously ;  I  came  to  San  Francisco  in  1829,  staid  here  then 
only  a  short  time ;  crossed  the  bay  then,  and  lived  between 
Pinole  and  Sonoma  and  San  Rafael  and  the  Read  Rancho, 
different  places,  for  seven  or  eight  years;  then  came  to  San 
Antonio,  opposite  San  Francisco,  staid  there  till  the  fall  of 
1838  ;  then  went  to  the  redwoods  above  Redwood  City, 
San  Mateo  Co.,  now  called  Searsville,  w^here  I  resided  till 
184:9,  when  I  came  to  San  Francisco  and  resided  till  1849, 
at  Mission  Dolores. 

Q.  2.  Did  you  know  Juan  Read  in  his  lifetime  ?  A!  I 
did. 

Q.  3.  When  and  how  did  you  become  acquainted  with 
him  ?  A.  The  first  time  I  got  acquainted  with  him  was 
in  1834,  at  Saucelito ;  I  met  him  there  when  I  went  after 
some  beef;  I  was  working  on  his  rancho. 

Q.  4.  Did  you  see  him  afterwards  ;  if  so,  how  frequently 
and  how  well  did  you  become  acquainted  with  him?  A.  I 
saw  him  afterwards  very  frequently ;  I  became  intimately 
acquainted  with  him  from  that  time  till  the  time  of  his 
death. 

Q.  5.  Did  you  know  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio?     A.   I  did. 

Q.  6.  When  did  you  first  become  acquainted  with  it  ? 
A.    In  1834. 

Q.  .7.  What  w^as  the  extent  of  that  rancho?  A.  I 
worked  on  the  rancho,  and  made  shingles  for  Mr.  Yount, 
then. 


18 

Q,  8.  Did  you  become  acquainted  with  boundaries  of 
the  rancho,  and  the  natural  objects  within  those  bounda- 
ries ?     A.    1  did  not. 

Q.  9.  When  did  you  make  the  shingles,  ond  out  of 
what?     A.    On  the  Read  Rancho,  out  of  redwood. 

Q.  10.  IIow  could  you  make  shingles  out  of  redwood, 
on  the  Read  Rancho,  without  becoming  acquainted  with 
some  of  the  natural  objects? 

Objected  to,  as  the  witness  says  he  does  not  know  the 
boundaries  of  said  rancho. 

A.  I  knew  the  trees  were  there,  but  I  did  not  know  the 
boundaries  of  the  rancho. 

Q.  10.  Question  10  repeated.  A.  I  became  acquainted 
with  the  timber,  and  the  land  I  was  on. 

Q.  11.  Did  you  participate  in  any  the  rodios  on  that 
rancho?  A.  I  was  there  as  a  looker-on,  but  was  not  en- 
gaged in  the  rodio  myself. 

Q.  12.  Did  you  become  acquainted  with  a  stream  called 
the  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Howard,  as  being  incompetent,  irrele- 
vant and  immaterial,  and  because  no  stream  is  mentioned  in 
the  juridical  possession. 

A.  I  don't  think  I  know  it.  I  knew  a  Corte  Madera 
de  San  Pablo,  when  I  worked  on  the  other  side,  for  two 
years. 

Q.  13.  On  the  other  side  of  what?  A.  You  go  on  the 
east  side  of  the  Point  Tiburon,  and  go  up  the  Corte  Madera 
Creek.  I  had  to  go  up  the  creek  to  get  to  the  Corte 
Madera. 

Q.  14.  Was  the  Corte  Madera  de  San  Pablo  on  the 
Corte  Madera  Creek,  or  on  a  branch  leading  into  that? 
A.  I  don't  know  the  names  of  the  creek.  I  know  the  wood 
was  up  in  there,  and  we  cut  there  and  delivered  the  wood 
down  at  the  landing. 

Q.  15.  What  landing  ?  A.  At  the  landing  at  the  creek 
called  Embarcadero,  where  the  boat  came  to  get  the  lum- 
ber. I  hauled  the  lumber  to  the  Embarcadero  of  Corte 
Madera  Creek.     I  have  not  been  there  for  (30)  thirty  years. 

Q.  16.  Was  the  Corte  Madera  where  you  cut  the  lumber, 
or  on  a  creek  ?  A.  No.  It  was  not.  I  had  to  go  a  mile 
for  lumber,  from  the  creek. 

Q.  17.  Did  you  know  the  point  called  Punta  de  Tiburon? 
A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  18.     Where  was  it  ?     A.    Opposite  Angel  Island. 


19 

Q.  19.  Did  you  know  the  place  .vhich  is  marked  on  the 
map  a3  Peninsula  Island  ? 

Objected  to  by  the  U.  S.  as  irrelevant  and  immaterial. 

A.  Yes,  sir.  It  was  known  as  the  Potrero  of  Point  Ti- 
buron.     It  was  all  called  Point  Tiburon. 

Q.  20.  Was  that  occupied  at  that  time  ?  If  so,  and 
liow  ? 

Objected  to  by  Messrs.  Mullen  &  Hyde,  as  incompetent 
and  immaterial. 

A.  The  cattle  of  Juan  Eead  bad  free  access  to  all  of 
that  potrero,  from  1835  to  the  time  of  his  death. 

Q.  21.     When  was  that  ?     A.    I  think  in  1842  or  1843. 

Q.  22.  Do  you  remember  whether  or  not  there  was  a 
fence,  with  bars,  or  gate,  across  the  neck  of  this  potrero? 
A.     There  was. 

Q.  23.  Did  you  know  an  arroyo  that  came  down  near 
the  house  of  Juan  Head  ?     A.    I  do. 

Q.  23.  Do  you  know  what  that  was  called  ?  A.  I  do 
not. 

Q.  24.  Do  you  know  if  there  was  a  Corte  Madera  on 
that  part  ?     A.    There  was.     It  had  a  mill  and — 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Howard,  as  being  incompetent,  imma- 
terial and  irrelevant. 

Q.  25.  Was  there  a  high  mountain  thereabouts  called 
Las  Palmas?  A.  There  was  a  mountain  there  called 
Tamalpais.  I  never  heard  it  called  Las  Palmas.  It  might 
have  been. 

Q.  26.  Did  the  stream  you  have  last  spoken  of  come 
down  from  that  mountain  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Howard,  representing  the  U.  S.  Dis- 
trict Attorney. 

A.  I  never  followed  it  up  to  its  head,  but  I  suppose  it 
does. 

Q.  27.  After  leaving  the  forest  of  redwoods,  did  this 
arroyo  flow  through  a  sausal,  or  willow  swamp  ?  A.  It  ran 
through  a  sausal. 

Q.  28.  Into  what  did  it  empty  or  discharge  itself?  A. 
It  empties  Into  the  mud  in  the  creek. 

Q.  29.  Did  it  communicate  with  the  salt  water  ?  A.  It 
ran  out  into  salt  water. 

Q.  30.     Did  you  know  the  house  of  Juan  Read  ? 

Objected  to  for  the  game  reason  as  before  stated,  and  be- 
cause the  objector  calling  the  witness  has  disclaimed  and 
withdrawn  all  objections  to  the  western  boundary  line. 


20. 

A.   Yes  ;  I  know  the  house  of  Juan  Read. 

Q.  31.  When  you  last  saw  that  house,  was  it  in  the  same 
phice  that  you  first  saw  it  ?  A.  It  was  not  in  the  same  place, 
and  it  was  not  the  same  house;  there  was  a  wooden  house 
facing  the  east ;  the  present  adobe  house,  was  in  the  course 
of  construction  when  he  died;  it  was  about  15  feet  from  the 
old  wooden  house,  which  faced  to  the  oast. 

Q.  32.  Did  you  know  an  estero  to  the  east  of  that  house? 
A.    There  was  an  estero  to  the  south-east  of  the  house. 

Q.  33.  Did  the  arroyo  that  you  have  spoken  of,  commu- 
nicate with  that  estero  ?  A.  It  did  not;  there  was  an  estero 
on  the  south-west  side. 

Q.  34.  Did  you  know  the  Punta  de  Sausal  ?  A.  Yes, 
sir ;  the  Punta  de  Sausal  by  Read's  house. 

Q.  35.  How  did  that  lie,  with  respect  to  the  two  estero 
mentioned  ?  A.  It  la}^  almost  due  north  from  the  estero 
w^hich  was  on  the  soutli-west  side  of  the  house,  and  distant 
about  150  yards. 

Q.  36.  IIow  is  that  point  designated  on  the  official  plat  ? 
A.    It  is  marked  "  Willow  Thicket  "  on  the  map. 

How  is  the  point  of  the  sausal  designated,  or  noted  on 
that  map?  A.  I  can't  tell;  the  willows  used  to  extend 
further  down  than  they  do  now  ;  they  extended  down  to  the 
shell  mound;  there  might  have  been  a  few  scattering  wil- 
lows down  in  the  marsh  ;  the  shell  mound  was  about  due 
west  of  the  house. 

Q.  38.  Did  you  know  the  remains  of  an  ancient  Indian 
rancheria  called  "Animas  ?"  A.  I  know  an  old  Indian 
rancheria  at  this  old  shell  mound,  lying  w^est  of  the  house, 
near  the  creek;  I  did  not  know  the  name  of  it  ;  there  was 
no  other  in  that  neighborhood  that  I  knew  of. 

Q.  38.  Did  you  know  an  enciiiada  whicli  ran  up  between 
Point  Cavallos  and  Tiburon?  A.  I  knew  a  cove  running 
up  between  those  points ;  I  do  not  know  what  it  is  called 
now. 

Q.  39.  What  is  it  called  on  that  map?  A.  I  cannot 
tell  ;  I  have  not  been  there  for  30  years. 

Q.  40.  Was  the  causeway  leading  from  the  mainland 
to  the  Potrero  of  Tiburon  ever  overflowed  by  the  sea  ? 
A.  i^ot  so  that  you  could  not  get  on  it ;  at  least  I  never 
saw  it. 

Q.  41,    Was  it  a  natural  causeway  ?     A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  42.  How  was  the  marsh  land  adjoining  the  ranch 
land  occupied,  and  by  whom  ?     A.   It  was   marsh  land  not 


21 

occupied  by  anybody  at  that  time ;  it  was  a  part  and  parcel 
of  the  rancho. 

Q.  43.  Was  it  occupied  by  cattle;  and  if  so,  whose  ?  A. 
As  far  as  cattle  could  go  on  it,  Read's  cattle  occupied  it. 

Q.  44.  Was  the  potrero  used  for  any  particular  kind  or 
class  of  cattle  ? 

Objected  to  as  in^'ompetent. 

A.  It  was;  any  time  they  wanted  to  pick  out  any  cattle 
for  killing  they  put  them  in  there;  when  the  grass  was  good 
they  left  the  gate  open. 


Cross-examination. 

Q.  1.  Do  you  know  by  whose  permission,  or  by  what 
authority,  Read  occupied  the  potrero  by  you  spoken  of  ?  A. 
I  do  not  know. 

Q.  2.  Please  look  at  the  official  map  and  point  out  there- 
on all  the  land  which  you  say  was  all  Point  Tiburon,  where 
it  began  and  where  it  terminated  ?  A.  The  witness  points 
to  the  map  and  says  :  This  was  all  included  as  Point  Tiburon, 
(the  line  he  draws  is  from  station  443,  across  the  land  to 
288  ;  on  the  opposite  side  the  land  is  bounded  by  this  line 
and  Richardson's  Bay,  Raccoon  Straits  and  San  Francisco 
Bay,  as  shown  by  the  official  map.) 

Q.  3.  In  jour  last  answer,  do  you  mean  the  land  you 
described  was  called  Tiburon,  or  Point  Tiburon  ?  A.  It 
was  called  Point  Tiburon. 

Q.  4.  Point  out  on  the  map  Punta  del  Tiburon.  A.  All 
the  land  I  pointed  out  was  called  Punta  Tiburon.  The 
potrero  was  included.  I  never  knew  that  one  single  point 
was  Point  Tiburon,  but  that  all  taken  together  was  the  Point 
Tiburon. 

Q.  5.  Where  was  the  point — the  extreme  point  ?  A. 
Witness  points  to  Station  'No.  385,  at  the  extreme  eastern 
point  of  the  survey.  Witness  says  :  If  I  was  going  through 
Raccoon  Straits,  I  should  call  the  Station  No.  343  and  No. 
360  Point  Tiburon,  should  I  land  at  either  of  these  places. 
I  should  call  Station  No.  385  the  Para  Punta. 

Q.  6.  How  far  west  from  the  embarcadero  did  you  cut 
timber  under  the  permission  of  Read,  on  the  Corte  Madera 
de  San  Pablo?  A.  A  good  long  mile  up  under  the  foot  of 
the  mountain. 

Q,  7.  Do  you  remember  any  sausal  lying  east  of  Read's 
house  ?     A.   f^o,  Sir. 


22 

Q.  8.  Bo  you  know  where  the  old  corral  of  Juan  "Read's 
was?  A.  It  was  between  the  two  houses  of  John,  Sr.,  and 
John  Read,  Jr. 

Q.  9.  Do  you  know  of  any  willows  near  that  corral  ? 
A.     No.     It  was  so  long  ago  I  can't  remember. 

CHARLES  BROWK. 

Here  adjourned  till  10  a.  m.  Monday,  October  1st,  1875. 


Monday— Met  and  adjourned  till  Tuesday,  at  10  a.  m. 


Tuesday— Met  and  adjourned  to  10  A.  M.  to-morrow* 


Wednesday,  November  3d,  1875. 

Met  pursuant  to  adjournment.     All  present. 

Messrs.  Mullen  &  Hyde,  attorneys  on  behalf  of  Hart, 
Coleman,  et  al.,  and  on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  now  ofier 
in  evidence  a  duly  certified  copy  of  tlie  original  espediente 
translation  and  diseiio  in  the  case  of  Jose  M.  Linientour, 
No.  549  Land  Commission,  together  with  the  opinion  and 
decision  of  said  Land  Commission,  as  tiled  February  12th, 
1856,  confirming  said  lands  to  said  Limentour. 

Objected  to  by  the  claimants  and  the  heirs  of  Juan  Read, 
and  by  J.  B.  Howard,  representing  the  United  States,  be- 
cause said  record  is  incomplete,  as  it  does  not  include  the 
record  in  that  case  on  appeal  to  the  U.  S.  District  Court, 
and  the  decision  of  the  said  Court,  pronouncing  the  said 
claim  of  said  Limentour  to  be  wholly  forged,  fraudulent,  and 
counterfeit,  and  wholly  manufactured,  subsequent  to  the 
acquisition,  by  the  United  States,  of  California. 

Objected  to  by  Judge  J.  B.  Southard,  on  the  same 
grounds  as  stated  by  Mr.  Howard,  for  claimants,  and  for  the 
United  States,  and  for  the  further  reason  that  it  is  irrelevant 
and  immaterial,  and  refers  to  the  case  of  Limentour  v.  The 
United  States,  Vols.  1,  2,  3  and  4. 

Mr.  Brooks'  objections  are  reserved. 

Here  adjourned  till  lOJ  a.  m.  Monday,  8th  inst. 


23 

"Wednesday,  I^ov.  8,  1875. 
Examiyiaiion  Resumed, 

Claimants'  examination  suspended  to  accommodate  Mr. 
De  Silva. 

Antonio  F.  De  Silva,  being  first  duly  sworn,  deposes  and 
says  : — I  am  58  years  old  ;  I  reside  on  Sim's  Island  :  have 
lived  there  since  1859;  occupation,  chicken-raiser  and 
tarming. 

Q»  1.  By  J.  B.  Howard,  attorney  for  F.  De  Silva. — 
Can  you  point  out  your  land  on  the  official  plat  of  survey 
of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio?     A.    Yes;  I  can. 

Q.  2.  Describe  the  island  ?  A.  Witness  points  out  the 
island  between  courses  No.  153  and  Bo.  164,  and  says  the 
neck  should  be  represented  as  marsh  land. 

Q.  3.  What  is  your  title  to  the  island  ?  A.  United 
States  patent,  cat.  Fo.  3866 ;  recorded  vol.  6,  page  447 
records.  General  Land  Office,  datiid  Oct.  15,1873.  A  copy 
of  said  patent  is  on  file  in  this  case. 

Q.  4.  What  is  the  connection  with  the  main  land  ?  A. 
At  high  tide  I  have  to  take  a  boat,  or  I  will  wet  my  legs 
sometimes  to  the  knee,  and  sometimes  halfway  to  the  knee. 

Q.  5.     Who  claims  to  own  the   tide   land    between   the 
island  and  the  main  land  ?     A.     I  do  ;  I  have  a  deed  from 
.  the  Tide  Land  Board  of  this  State,  dated  August  24,  1872, 
being  No,  131,  3d  series. 

Q.  6.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  title  to  the  marsh  and 
tide  lands  or  the  island  ?     A.    No,  sir. 

^     Q.  7.     The   deed  is  oftered  in  evidence  and  marked  Ex- 
hibit to  De  Silva's  Island  claim,  J.  A.  E,. 

The  witness  being  shown  the  protest  signed  A.  F.  De 
8ilva,  dated  and  filed  May  21st,  1875,  is  asked.  Is  that  your 
protest  and  signature  thereto?  A.  Tliat  is  my  protest  and 
my  signature  thereto. 

Q.  8.  Do  you  claim  to  own  the  island  and  the  marsh 
land  intervening?     A.    Yes,  sir;  I  do. 

Cross- Question, 

Q.  1.  What  is  the  nature  of  the  land  that  connects  the 
island  and  the  main  land  ?     A.    It  is  marsh  land. 

Q.  2.  Does  this  marsh  land  connect  it  with  the  main 
land  ?     A.   It  does. 

Q^  3.  Is  this  marsh  land  similar  to  the  marsh  land  along 
the  bay  ?     A.   It  is  of  the  same  character. 

ANTONIO  FERREIRA  DA  SILVA. 


24 

Mr.  Brooks  concurred  in  the  objection  made  by  J.  B. 
Ho.vard  and  J.  B.  Southard,  in  their  objection  to  the  exhibit 
affivcd  by  Messrs.  Mullen  &  Hyde,  on  the  3d  inst.  The 
question  as  to  the  admittance  of  said  exhibit  is  argued  and 
submitted  to  the  Surveyor-General.  The  Surveyor-Gen- 
eral :  that  the  exhibit  be  admitted  as  filed. 

The  claimants  (Read  heirs),  here  state  that  before  the 
admission  of  the  above  exhibit  by  the  Surveyor-General, 
the  said  Read  heirs,  by  their  counsel,  exhibited,  and  showed 
and  oftered  to  read  to  the  Surveyor-General  the  final  decis- 
ion of  the  U.  S.  District  Court  rejecting  the  claim  of  said 
Jose  Y.  Limentour,  as  being  forged,  frauduleut,  antedated 
and  counterfeit  in  all  its  parts,  and  referred  to  Hoffman's 
Reports,  volume  I.,  being  reports'  of  land  cases  determined 
in  the  IJ.  S.  District  Court,  for  the  Northern  District  of  Cal., 
by  Ogden  Hoifman,  U.  S.  District  Judge,  :N'o.  889  to  451 
inclusive,  and  also  volumes  I,  20,  3d  and  4th,  of  the  report- 
ed cases  ot"  the  IT.  S.  vs.  Jose  Y.  Limentour,  and  notwith- 
standing the  Surveyor-General  admitted  in  evidence  said 
forged  exhibit,  to  which  the  said  Read  heirs  except,  and  give 
notice  that  they  will  move  the  Hon.  Commissioner  General 
Land/Oflice  to  strike  out  the  same,  and  to  enforce  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Act  of  1858,  relative  to  the  use  of  forged 
titles  in  Gil.,  as  evidence  in  land  cases.  11th U.  S.  Statutes, 
page  291,  etc. 

J.  B.  Howard,  attorney  for  Gushing,  Riley  and  Barlow, 
and  the  United  States,  join  in  the  motion  and  notice. 

J.  B.  Southard,  on  behalf  of  Wormouth,  makes  the  same  ' 
objection. 

Mullen  &  Hyde,  on  behalf  of  Hart,  Coleman,  and  the 
United  States,  excepts,  and  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that 
one  of  the  objects  of  the  introduction  is  not  to  set  up  or  to 
establish  any  claim  in  this  case  against  the  United  States, 
but  for  the  purpose  of  showing,  establishing,  maintaining 
and  defending  a  claim  in  behalf  of  the  United- States,  whose 
claim  thereto  Hart  and  Coleman  recognize  and  respect,  and 
that  motion  of  counsel  is  m9,de  either  in  ignorance  of  the 
law  and  the  object  of  its  passage,  or  is  intended  as  a  threat 
or  intimidation,  which  is  irrelevant. 

2d.  Because  it  goes  to  show  the  traditions  of  the  country, 
to  the  efi'ect  that  there  was  vacant  land  at  Point  Tiburon. 

R.  C.  Hopkins  is  called  by  B.  S.  Brooks,  as  a  witness, 
and  being  first  duly  sworn,  deposes  and  says :    My  age  is 


25 

fifty-nine;  residence,  San  Francisco;  occupation,  Clerk  of 
Spanish  Records^ 

Q.  1.  How  long  have  you  been  in  charge  of  the  Spanish 
archives  in  the  U.  S.  Surveyor-General's  Office?  A.  I 
have  been  constantly  conversant  with  the  Spanish  archive^ 
in  the  office  of  the  U.  S.  Surveyor-General  for  California, 
for  the  last  twenty  years. 

Q.  2.  To  what  extent  have  you  become  familiar  with 
the  language  of  said  archives  ?  A.  I  have  such  famiharity 
with  the  language  of  the  archives  as  a  man  of  ordinary  in- 
telligence would  have,  who  twenty  years  had  a  good  knowl- 
edge of  the  Spanish  language,  and  whose  daily  business  for 
the  last  twenty  years  has  been  mosjtly.in  connection  with  the 
Spanish  language. 

Q.  8.  Have  you  had  occasion  during  that  time  to  search 
said  records,  and  how  frequent  ?  A.  For  the  last  20  years  I 
have  had  occasion  and  have  been  constantly  called  upon  to 
make  searches  in  said  archives. 

Q.  4.  Have  you  during  that  time  been  called  upon  by 
the  government  to  make  searches  through  said  archives  for 
record  evidence  on  particular  subjects,  and  how  often?  A. 
I  have.     How  often  I  cannot  say,  but  a  great  many  times. 

Q.  5.  Did  you  make  any  such  examination  and  report  in 
regard  to  the  Limentour  claims?  A.  I  spent  nearly  the 
whole  of  the  year  1858  in  making  investigations  in  relation 
to  the  Limentour  claims  in  connection  with  the  late  Hon. 
^d.  M.  Stanton,  who  was  sent  out  by  the  government  to  ex- 
amine those  claims  in  that  year. 

Q.  6.  Did  you,  under  his  direction,  select  from  the  grants 
and  espedientes  in  the  archives  and  arrange  certain  classes 
of  espedientes?     A,     I  do  so. 

Q.  7.  How  much  of  the  volume  Jose  Y.  Limentour  vs. 
XJ.  S.,  archives  exhibits,  is  your  work  ?  A.  I  think  the  ar-- 
chive  exhibits  was  all  my  work. 

Q.  8.  Did  you  make  the  collection  contained  in  the 
Land  Commission  Exhibits  ?     A.     I  think  so. 

Q.  9.  Did  you  perform  similar  services  in  the  Pueblo  of 
San  Francisco  ?     A.     I  think  I  did.  ^ 

Q.  10.  In  the  Castilien  Almaden  case  ?  A.  Yes  sir ; 
I  presume  in  those  three  cases  I  gave  ^ve  years  of  steady 
hard  labor.  I  was  also  employed  in  the  Bolton  and  Barron 
case. 

J.  W,  Shanklin,  foi^  Messrs.  Mullen  and  Hyde,  objects  to 
the  examination  on  the  ground  that  it  is  irrelevant. 


26 

Q.  11.  Did  you  in  the  course  of  these  investi.tyations  be- 
came familiar  with  theLimentonr  seal  ?     A.     I  did. 

Q.  12.  Did  you  became  familiar  with  the  hand  writing 
of  the  Mexican  officials,  and  particularly  of  that  of  Michel^ 
torena?     A.     I  did. 

Q.  13.  Did  you  examine  the  Espediente  'No.  549  offered 
in  evidence  by  Mullen  &  Hyde  Nov.  3d  inst,  in  this  case, 
and  admitted  to-day  by  the  U.  S.  Surveyor-General?  A.  I 
did  so* 

Q.  14.  Is  that  a  genuine  or  fabricated  espediente  ?  A. 
it  was  fabricated. 

Q.  15.  What  are  the  badges  of  fraud  that  distinguish  it 
as  fabricated  ?  A.  This  espediente  is  written  upon  paper 
bearing  the  Limentour  Custom  House  seal.  The  records 
in  the  archives  show  that  in  Feb.  1843,  there  was  no  stamp- 
ed paper  in  the  Department  of  California,  and  that  there  was 
none  used  till  May,  1843.  The  Limentour  grant  to  the  City 
of  San  Francisco,  bears  date  Feb.  22d,  1843,  and  is  written 
upon  paper,  identical,  printed  heading  and  seal,  with  the 
paper  on  which  this  is  written.  The  seal  upon  this  paper  is 
not  the  genuine  Custom  House  seal.  The  written  petition ^ 
grant  and  signature  is  that  of  Jose  Yoes  Limentour;  the 
marginal  w^riting  or  order,  on  the  first  page,  is  certainly  in 
the  hand-writing  of  Don  Manuel  Micheltorena ;  but  inas- 
much as  I  have  seen  a  number  of  sheets  of  paper  bearing  the 
same  seal  blank,  except  the  marginal  order,  written  and 
signed  by  Micheltorena  himself,  I  do  not  consider  the  fact 
that  this  marginal  order,  wdiich  was  in  the  hand-writing  of, 
and  signed  by  Gov.  Micheltorena,  is  any  evidence  that  the 
document  is  genuine,  or  made  at  the  time  it  bears  date. 

Q.  16.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  Rancho  Corte  Ma- 
dera del  Presidio?     A.   lam. 

Q.  17.  When  and  how  did  you  become  acquainted  with 
it  ?  A.  First :  for  the  last  twenty  years  I  have  been  fa- 
milliar  wdth  the  original  title  papers.  Secondly  :  I  have 
been  twice  upon  the  grounds  during  the  last  three  years. 

Q.  18.  How  long  have  you  resided  in  this  city  ?  A. 
For  twenty-five  years  ;   said  rancho  is  in  sight   of  the   city* 

19.  How  long  have  the  majority  of  those  calls,  mentioned 
in  the  title  papers,  been  familiar  to  you  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mullen,  on  the  grouiid  that  this  w^itnes^s 
has  not  testified  as  to  the  calls.  I  have  been  familiar  with 
the  calls  mentioned  in  the  title  papers  for  the  last  twenty 
years  ;  I  can  repeat  them  without  the  record. 


27 

Q.  20.  Please  do  so.  A.  The  calls  of  possession  are  as 
follows  : — "Commencing  at  the  solar,  situated  near  the  skirt 
of  a  redwood  forest,  known  as  Palos  Colorados,  in  a  north- 
erly d  rection  as  far  as  the  arroyo  called  Holon,  where  there 
is  another  redwood  strove,  called  the  Arroyo  de  San  Pablo, 
and  from  thence  to  the  Point  of  Tiburon  ;  thence  there  are 
two  more  calls  to  the  point  of  beojinning.  From  the  point 
of  the  sausal,  which  lies  near  the  house  (east  of  the  house); 
from  that  point  16  cordeles  to  the  point  of  beginning." 
I  will  give,  now,  the  boundaries  given  of  the  grant  to  Kead, 
are: — "The  Mission  of  San  Rafael  and  the  Port  of  San 
Francisco." 

Q.  21.  Do  yon  know  the  bay,  or  cove,  formed  by  the 
Point  Tiburon  and  Point  Caballos  ?     A.     I  do. 

Q.  22.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  ensenada?  A. 
It  means  a  sm  ill  bay  or  cove. 

Q.  23.  How  long  have  you  known  that,  and  by  what 
name  i»it  called  ?  A.  I  have  known  it  for  the  last  25  years ; 
I  only  know  it  by  the  name  of  Richardson's  Bay;  for  a  long 
time  I  did  not  know  it  by  any  name. 

Q,  24.  Do  you  know  the  short  estuary,  in  which  that 
bay  terminates?  A.  I  know  that  this  bay  terminates  in  a 
Canada,  which  continues  up  to  a  grove  of  redwoods. 

Q.  25.  Did  you  know  the  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ? 
A.  I  know  a  place  where  tliei'e  is,  or  has  been,  a  forest  of 
redwoods,  which  I  learned  that  in  ancient  times  was  called 
Corte  M-idera  del  Presidio. 

Q.  26.  Entering  the  cove  between  Point  Tiburon  and 
Point  Caballos,  passing  up  to  its  head  and  through  the 
short  estero,  and  continuing  on  in  the  same  direction,  follow- 
ing the  Canada,  how  does  the  redwood  forest  you  have 
spoken  of,  lie,  with  respect  to  the  Canada  ?  A.  My  recol- 
lection of  the  locality  is  not  sufficiently  distinct  to  be  able  to 
answer  this  question  accurately  ;  farther  than  that,  following 
the  Canada  up  some  distance,  I  think  you  reach  the  red- 
wood forest ;  how  this  forest  lies,  in  relation  to  said  Canada, 
I  cannot  answer,  as  my  memory  does  not  serve  me. 

Q.  27.  What  is  a  caiiada  'i  A.  It  is  a  narrow  valley. 
It  is  from  the  word  canon. 

Q.  28.  What  is  a  corte  de  madera  ?  A.  It  is  a  place 
where  timber  is  cut.  It  is  from  corte,  to  cut ;  madera^ 
timber. 

Q.  29.     What  is  "  cerro  alto  ?"     A.     It  is  "  high  hill." 

Q.  30.     Was  there  not  in  that  direction  a  high  hill,  and 


28 

how  was  it  known  ?  A.  There  was  in  that  direction  a  liio^h 
hill,  which  is  now  called  ^*  Tamalpais." 

Q.  31.  How  long  have  you  known  that?  A.  For  ihe 
last  20  years  or  more. 

Q.  32,  Do  you  know  the  Pueblo  de  San  Rafael  ?  If  sc, 
how  long  have  you  known  it  ?  A.  I  know  the  Mission  of 
San  Rafael,  and  have  known  it  for  the  last  25  years. 

Q.  33.  Was  there  a  village  there  when  you  first  came  to 
the  country  ?     A.     There  was. 

Q.  34.  How  has  it  ever  since  been  known,  and  now 
known?     A.     It  has  ever  since  been  knowj  as  San  Rafael. 

Q.  35.  Did  you  know  another  redwood  f  )rest  lying  to 
tlie  north  of  the  one  spoken  of,  and  called  Corto  Madera  de 
San  Pablo  ?  A.  A  place  has  been  pointed  out  to  me  as  the 
spot  where  formerly  stood  a  grove  of  redwood  trees,  form- 
erly called  Corte  Madera  de  San  Pablo. 

Q.  S<6.  What  do  yon  understand  by  the  nieanin<j:  of  the 
wo  I'd  s:  '""  por  la  parte  del  oriente  termmando  en  la  dichd^Puida 
del  Ttburon?''  A.  On  the  side  of  the  east,  terminating  at 
the  point,  or  in  the  Point  of  Tiburon. 

Q.  37.  Does  that  convey  exactness  of  location  to  a  cer- 
tain point  ? 

Objected  to  by  Cutter,  it  being  simply  a  matter  of  opinion. 

A.     It  doos. 

Q.  38.  What  is  that  certain  point  ?  A.  The  word  is  La 
Punta.  The  Spanish  word  la  punta  means  a  point,  sneh  as 
the  point  of  a  needle.  In  other  words,  it  is  an  imaginary 
or  mathematical  point.  El  piinto,  on  the  other  hand,  means 
a  place  or  locality.  Heni-e,  the  word  used  there.  Termi- 
iiando  en  la  dicha  punta,  means  terminating  at  said  mathe- 
matical or  imaginary  Point  of  Tiburon. 

Q.  89.  What  is  the  signification  there  of  the  word  ter- 
minal! ?     A.     They  terminate. 

Q.  40.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  words  hasta  la  Punta 
del  Tiburon  f     A.     As  far  as  the  Point  of  Tiburon. 

Q.  41.  To  what  portion  of  Point  Tiburon,  wherever  that 
may  be,  would  such  a  course  extend  ? 

Objoc'el  to  by  Cutter  as  immaterial. 

A.  It  would  extend  to  the  uttermost  or  extrerfie  point  of 
land,  where  it  joins  the  water. 

Q.  42.  What  is  the. force  of  the  expression  ''que  dijeron 
ser  teriiiiiio  r"     A.     Which  they  said  was  the  "terminus." 

Q.  43.  In  speaking  of  the  Arroyo  San  Pablo,  it  is  spoken 
of  "dijeron  ser  lindero;"  while  speaking  of  la  pun'a,  the  ex- 


29 

pression  is  "dejeron  ser  termino ;"  what  is  the  difference  of 
the  signification  of  those  two  expressions?  A.  The  first  is, 
*'they"said  was  the  bi)undarj;"  and  the  second  is,  "they  said 
was  the  terminns."    I  think  thej  convey  the  same  meaning. 

Q.  44.  What  is  the  force  of  the  expression,  "  se  continuo 
la  medida,  hasta  k  punta  del  TiburonV"  A.  It  means  that 
the  measurement  was  continued  as  far  as  the  point  at  Ti- 
buron. 

Q.  45.  Well,  how  far  is  that?  A.  To  the  ultimate  or  ex- 
treme point,  where  the  land  and  water  meet. 

Counsel  Mullen  &  Hyde  move  that  the  foregoing  answer 
bo  stricken  out,  as  being  incompetent. 

Q.  46.  What  is  the  significance  of  the  expression,  "y  ser- 
vieiido  de  termino  y  serial  decha  punta?"  A.  It  means, 
"and  said  point  serving  as  a  terminus  and  sign." 

Mullen  &  Hyde  move  to  strike  out  last  answer  as  incom- 
petent. 

Q.  47.  What  is  the  exact  meaningof  the  word  "senal?" 
A.  Sign  or  mark. 

Q.  48.  When  did  you  first  visit  the  raucho  of  Corte  de 
Madera?  A.  I  was  on  the  land  for  the  first  time  about 
three  years  since,  but  I  have  seen  it  from  the  bay  many 
times  during  the  last  twenty-five  years. 

Q.  49.  "W  hat  was  your  object  in  visiting  the  rancho  on  the 
occasion  of  your  first  visit  ? 

J.  B.  Howard  objects  to  question  on  behalf  of  the  United 
States,  on  the  ground  of  immateriality. 

A.  I  went  at  the  request  of  parties  interested,  to  examine 
the  same  at  the  boundaries,  as  called  for  in  the  original  title 
papers. 

Q.  50.  Did  you  have  with  you  any  of  the  original  title 
papers  at  that  time?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  51.  Did  you  have  with  you  the  record  of  juridical  pos- 
session?    A.  I  had  the  original  or  a  copy. 

Q.  52.  Who  accompanied  you  on  that  occasion?  A.  To 
the  best  of  my  recollection,  Mr.  Valentine,  Mr.  Jose  de  la 
Cruz  Sanches,  Dr.  Lyford,  Mrs.  Lyford,  and  perhaps  some 
others. 

Q.  53.  In  that  visit,  did  you  enter  the  encinada  between 
Point  Tiburon  and  Caballos?     A.     We  did. 

Q.  54.  Did  you  proceed  up  to  the  head  of  the  encinada? 
A.  We  did,  by  land  from  Saucelito,  which  is  situated  oa 
the  western  shore  of  the  encinada,  a  short  distance  inside,  at 
the  entrance  of  the  same. 


go 

Tuesday,  IN^ovember  9tli,  1875. 
J.  R.  Valencia's  cross-examination  resumed. 

Q.  43.  Wljat  position,  if  any,  did  you  occupj^  on  the 
Rancho  Corte  de  Madera  del  Presidio,  prior  to  1859  ?  A, 
I  was  then  living  with  my  aunt  and  John  Read  in  1857  and 
1858 ;  I  worked  around  the  rancho. 

Q.  44.  Were  you  on  said  rancho  prior  to  1858  ?  If  so, 
in  what  capacity  ?  A.  I  was  there  in  1839,  '40,  '41,  and  in 
1845,  '46,  up  to  1849.     I  left  there  in  October,  1849. 

Q.  45,  Was  your  aunt,  the  wife  of  John  Read,  the 
claimant  of  said  rancho?     A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  46.  In  what  capacity  were  you  occupied  on  said 
rancho  during  said  times,  if  any  ?  A.  Helping  rodeo  cattle, 
helping  to  kill  cattle,  and  in  1846  I  acted  as  mayor-domo  of 
the  rancho. 

Q.  47.  Who  was  mayor-domo  when  you  first  went  on 
this  rancho?     A.  There  was  no  mayor  domo. 

Q.  48.  Whom  did  you  find  in  general  charge  of  said 
rancho  and  the  property  thereon?     A.  John  Read. 

Q.  49.  Do  you  know  how  long  thereafter  he  continued 
in  such  charge  ?  A.  I  think  until  he  died  ;  I  think  in 
1842  or  '43.  ^  It  might  have  been  in  1844. 

Q.  50.  By  whom  were  you  appointed  mayor-domo  ? 
A.  By  Mrs.  Read. 

Q.  51.  Did  Mrs.  Read  ever  point  out  to  you  any  monu- 
ments on  this  rancho  as  boundary,  or  marking  boundaries 
of  the  same  ?  A.  She  never  pointed  it  out  to  me,  but  she 
told  me  how  far  she  claimed. 

Q.  52.  Did  any  one  ever  point  out  to  you  the  monu- 
ments marking  the  boinidaries  of  said  rancho  ?  A.  I  was 
shown  by  John  Read  the  lines  how  far  he  claimed. 

Q.  53.  Did  you  ever  see  on  said  rancho  anj^  structures 
of  masonry  more  than  a  vara  high  that  were  put  as  bounds 
or  boundaries  of  said  rancho?     A.  I  only  saw  one. 

Q.  54.  How  high  was  that  one,  and  describe  it.  A.  It 
was  not  very  high.  It  was  a  pile  of  rock  on  the  top  of  a 
small  ridge  on  the  side  of  the  hill  Tamalpais. 

Q.  54.  You  state  you  first  went  to  this  rancho  in  1839, 
and  that  John  Read  died  in  1842  or  1843;  during  these 
times  did  you  have  any  conversation  with  John  Read  in 
relation  to  any  structures  of  masonry  established  by  him, 
marking  the  boundaries  of  this  ranch  ?  A.  Only  these 
natural  boundaries  and  this  pile  of  rocks  I  have  just  men- 
tioned, and  a  cross  he  put  in  on  the  top  of  Tamalpais. 


31 

Q.  55.  On  page  36  of  your  direct  testimony,  Answef 
jVo.  22,  you  state"  that  Francisco  De  Harm  was  the  mayor- 
»tlomo  of  tljis  rancho,  and  that  he  was  the  son  of  Francisco 
De  H  irro  the  Alcalde.  How  do  you  explain  that  you  were 
tlie  first  mayor-dorao  between  1*840  and  1846,  and  yet  in 
tliis  answer  state  that  Francisco  He  Ilarro  was  mayor-domo 
in  1845?  A.  I  never  said  I  was  mayor-domo  prior  to  1846. 
I  went  thei'o  in  1846.  From  the  time  of  Jolm  Read's 
death  in  1842,  or  '43,  Francisco  He  Harro  was  tlie  mayor- 
tjomo  till  he  (He  Ilarro)  died  in  1846.  Then  I  was  ap- 
pointed mayor-domo  of  said  rancho,  and  continued  to  act 
its  such  to  October,  1849. 

Q.  56.  Please  describe  the  length  of  the  land  (beginning 
^at  Kaccoon  Straits)  which  was  called  "  La  Panta  del  Tibu- 
ron." 

Olyected  to  by  Howard,  that  it  does  not  appear  from  the 
evidence  that  tliere  ever  was  a  tract  of  lajid  call  "  La  Punta 
del  Tiburon." 

A.     I  cannot  describe  it  without  a  map. 

Mullen  &  Ilj'de  here  show  to  witness  the  official  survey 
of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  as  surveyed  by 
Ransom  &  Allardt  in  1874,  and  question  No.  56  is  repeated. 

A.  This  is  the  Point  of  Tiburon  (pointing  to  the  ex- 
treme point  of  land  in  the  survey).  It  runs  back  towards 
Taraalpais  Mountain. 

Q.  57.  How  many  varas  in  length,  from  Raccoon  Straits 
und  in  the  direction  of  Tamalpais  Mountain,  would  be  what 
is  called  La  Punta  del  Tiburon  ? 

Objected  to  by  Howard — 

1st.  It  does  not  appear  from  the  evidence  that  there  is 
any  place  called  La  Punta  del  Tiburon,  and  it  does  appear 
that  the  counsel  has  confused  "  Tiburon,"  being  the  body  of 
Jand  with  the  boundaries  or  limits  of  said  land. 

2d.  Because  it  is  not  the  best  evidence,  as  it  is  shown, 
both  by  the  official  plat  of  survey  and  by  the  original  di- 
seno,  that  said  tract  of  land,  designated  by  the  counsel  as  the 
Point  of  Tiburon,  is  called  simply  Tiburon  ;  and  the  point 
is  designated  as  the  place  where  this  land  joins  the  Raccoon 
Straits,  being  a  mathematical  point  or  line. 

3d.  Because  it  is  incompetent,  immaterial  and  irrelevant 
to  the  issue. 

4th.  Because  the  witness  is  removed  from  the  room  in 
which  testimony  is  being  taken,  for  the  purpose,  as  alleged 
hj  counsel,  of  preventing  the  question  from  being  fully  ex- 


32 

plained  and  made  known  to  liim  in   assisting-  his   under- 
standing thereof. 

5th.  Mr.  Brooks  adds:  The  said  witness  beins^  of  Mex- 
ican descent,  and  the  English  not  being  his  mother  tongue, 
it  is  only  fair  to  all  parties  that  all  the  counsel  should  see 
that  he  understands  the  meaning  of  the  questions  asked 
him. 

Mullen  &  Iljde  here  state  that  this  witness  is  ordered  to 
leave  the  room,  in  order  to  avoid  having  his  answer  dictated 
in  the  objection  of  counsel. 

A.  I  could  not  tell  the  number  of  varas.  I  never  meas- 
ured it. 

Q.  58.  Please  point  out  on  the  map  the  length  of  what 
was  called  La  Punta  del  Tiburon.  How  far  did  it  extend 
inward  or  inhind  ?  A.  The  witness  points  to  the  extreme 
eastern  point  of  the  land  and  says,  This  point  1  can  tell  you, 
but  how  far  it  extends  from  said  point  westerly  I  don't  know; 
I  never  measured  it. 

Q.  59.  About  how  far  does  it  extend  from  Raccoon  Straits 
inwardly;  I  mean  the  La  Punta  del  Tiburon  ?  A.  Just  as  I 
said  before,  I  cannot  say.  If  you  ask  me  in  miles,  I  could 
tell,  more  or  less. 

Q.  60.  How  many  miles,  then,  from  Raccoon  Straits,  does 
the  point  called  La  Punta  del  Tiburon  extend?  A.  It  ex- 
tends from  3  to  5  miles;  I  know  it  extends  over  3  miles. 
How  much  more  I  can't  tell. 

Q.  61.  How  wide,  from  water  to  water,  is  what  is  called 
La  Punta  del  Tiburon,  and  one  mile  distance  from  Raccoon 
Straits?  A.  It  may  be  a  Rttle  over  a  mile  in  some  places; 
perhaps  a  mile;  in  other  places  over  a  mile. 

Q.  62.  Describe  the  country  lying  between  California 
City  Point  and  the  Head  of  Richardson's  Bay.  Give  a 
general  idea  of  the  face  of  the  country  ?  A.  It  is  some 
hilly,  and  some  level.     The  largest  portion  is  hilly. 

Q.  63.  Please  describe  the  land  lying  between  Raccoon 
Straits  and  a  line  drawn  from  California  City  Point  to  post 
marked  N'o.  272  ?  A.  On  the  California  City  Point  side  it  is 
very  steep.  There  are  some  little  caiions  running  down  to 
the  Bay.  There  is  a  big  ridge  not  far  from  the  letter  in  red 
ink,  "  W,"  at  the  end  of  the  words  "  T  1.  NR  5  W."  The 
highest  place  is  between  stations  580  and  550.  From  this 
ridge,  on  the  side  towards  Richardson's  Bay,  the  land  is  not 
so  steep.     There  are  some  little  flats,  near  the  Bay. 

Q.  64.  In  your  judgment,  would  what  is  called  "La 
Punta  del  Tiburon"  extend  from  Raccoon  Straits,  to  about  a 


33 

line  d',)wn  from  <'  California  City  Point"  to  Post  ¥o.  272  on 
this  plat,  or  to  a  line  from  California  Cit^^  Point  to  a  point 
between  stations  l^o.  242  and  I^o.  243  ? 

Objected  to  by  Howard,  because  the  witness  has  designated 
the  extreme  point  of  land  as  Point  of  Tiburon,  and  a  point  is 
incapable  of  measurament. 

A.  Starting  from  here  it  runs  farther  inland.  It  would 
go  even  father  than  that. 

Be-direct  Examination, 

Q.  1.  To  what  point  inland  did  you  consider  or  under- 
stand the  place  Tiburon  to  extend?  A.  I  consider  that  it 
extended  to  the  w^esterii  boundary  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Ma- 
deni,  as  surveyed,  and  as  shown  on  the  official  plat. 

Q.  2.  Where  do  you  understand  a  line  to  terminate,  meas- 
uring from  Holon  kasia  La  Panta  del  Tiburon  sermenda  de 
termino  y  scnal  dicha  punia. 

Objected  to,  because  the  call  as  described  is  incomplete, 
and  the  whole  thereof  not  expressed,  to  wit ;  the  distance 
that  they  measured,  200  cordeles,  the  same  being  an  essen- 
tial portion  or  part  of  said  call. 

A.  It  commenced  at  the  Arroyo  Holon,  and  would  ter- 
minate at  the  water  at  Raccoon  Straits. 

Q.  3.  How  was  the  stone  monument  you  have  spoken  of 
situated  with  respect  to  the  place  marked  on  this  map  in  the 
western  boundary  post  in  stone  mound  marked  "  C.  M.  P." 
A.  It  is  further  west  than  that  point,  and  not  shown  on  this 
map.  It  is  close  to  the  Holon  near  Tamalpais;  it  is  on  the 
top  of  a  ridge  that  comes  down  from  Tamalpais,  running 
eastwardlj^,  crossing  the  county  road. 

Q.  4.  Was  there  pointed  out  to  you  as  a  boundary  mark 
an  oak  tree  near  the  angle  of  the  Holon?  A.  The  oak  tree 
was  not  pointed  out  to  me,  but  the  creek  and  pile  of  rocks 
were,  that  I  spoke  of  before — the  creek  down  to  the  bay, 
the  Holon  Creek. 

Cross-examined  by  Mullen  &  Hyde  : 

Q.  1.  Suppose  the  distance  from  Holon  "Haste  la  Punta 
del  Tiburon  serviendo  de  termino  y  serial  decha  punta''  of 
200  cordels,  of  50  Castillian  varas,  should  be  measured  along 
the  line  of  the  bay  on  the  east,  where  then  would  be  the 
end  of  the  line  of  boundary  of  said  rancho  in  that  direction? 


34 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Brooks  as  being  a  question  of  law, 
and  not  of  Hict,  it  being  a  maxim  of  the  law  that  course  and 
distance  yield  to  a  call  for  a  natural  monument  or  object.     , 

A,     I  don't  know,  I  cannot  tell. 

C^.  2.  .  AYould  not  the  end  of  s^dd  boundary  line  be  at  the 
end  of  a  line  of  200cordels,  of  oU  varas  each,  measured  from 
the  Holon? 

Same  objection, 

A.  It  would  be  at  the  oud  of  the  200  cordels,  of  50  varas 
each. 

Bc'DirecU 

Q.  1.  If  the  call  was  to  run  as  far  as  the  point,  and  that 
the  point  itself  should  serve  as  termino  y  serial,  and  a  num- 
ber of  cordels  was  given  as  the  measurement,  where  would 
be  the  end  of  that  line?     A.   It  would  be  at  Raccoon  Straits. 

Witness  points  to  the  extreme  point  of  land  in  the  ofHcial 
survey  on  liaccoon  Straits. 

Mr,  Cutter  moves  to  strike  out  this  answer,  as  the  witness 
has  not  shown  himself  an  expert  in  measuring  distances. 

Q.  4.  Look  at  the  diseno  in  tlie  original  espediente  of 
this  rancho  now  shown  you,  and  say  if  you  recognize  the 
objects  thereon  delineated  V 

Mullen  &  Hyde  object,  on  the  ground  that  said  diseno 
bears  upon  its  face  evidence  of  having  been  tampered  with 
in  this,  that  the  ink  used  in  marking  certain  lines  thereon 
is  different  from  the  ink  used  in  the  general  body  of  the 
diseno. 

S.  L.  Cutter  objects  on  the  ground  that  the  diseiio  offered 
is  not  the  diseno  belonging  to  the  papers  in  the  claim  of 
the  claimants  to  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  and 
that  this  is  shown  on  the  face  of  the  said  diseho.  That  the 
diseno  offered  is  a  loose  paper,  showing  no  connections  with 
the  espediente  ]^o.  27,  in  connection  wdth  which  it  is 
brought  forward,  but  bears  upon  its  face  marks  that  it 
belongs  to  other  matters,  and  luis  been  altered  to  suit  the 
supposed  requirements  of  the  espediente  with  which  it  is 
now  offered; 

J.  B.  Howard  objects  to  the  paper  presented,  and  to  the 
witness  testifying  to  the  same,  unless  it  is  first  offered  as  an 
exhibit,  or  made  a  part  of  the  record,  or  shown  to  be. 

Mr.  Brooks  proposes  to  file  a  certified  traced  copy  of  the 
said  diseno,  being  the  diseiio  in  espediente  l^o.  27,  entitled 
"  espediente  sobre  el  paraje  nombrado  el  Sausalito  solici- 
tado  per  Don  Juan  Reid." 


85 

Mullen  &  Hyde  interpose  the  same  objections  as  those 
made  by  Mr.  Cutter,  as  made  on  pages  98  and  99. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 
•     Q.  25.     What   are   the    small    objects    marked    on    the 
diseiio  between  the  figures   35  and  the  point  ?     A,  It  is  a 
roc  V  there,  close  to  the  point. 

Q.  26.  Wiiat  point  is  that?  A.  It  is  what  is  now^  called 
Kashaw's  Point. 

Q.  27»     Point  it  out  on  the  map  of  the  official  survey. 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Plyde  as  incompetent,  and  be- 
cause there  is  no  such  corresponding  representi'tion  on  said 
otficial  map,  which  said  question  assumes. 

A.  Witness  points  to  the  extreme  southeast  point  at  the 
peninsular  island  on  said  map. 

Q.  28.  Do  you  recognize  on  the  diseiio  the  small  oval 
object  marked  between  the  figures  1  and  IH     A.  I  do. 

Q.  29.  What  is  that?  A.  Another  rock;  a  kind  of 
white  rock. 

Q.  30.  Where  does  that  lie  ?  A.  It  lies  on  the  Saucc- 
lito  side. 

Q.  31.  Saucelito  side  of  what  ?  A.  Of  this  peninsular 
island?  J.P.VALENCIA. 

Peter  Gardner  moves  to  strike  out  all  the  testimony  given 
b}^  this  witness,  as  to  the  boundaries  of  said  rancho  on  the 
west  and  easterly  sides  and  their  length  and  termini,  as  in- 
competent and  being  in  contradiction  of  the  record  of  judi- 
Kjial  possession. 

Jno.  B.  Howard  moves  to  strike  out  the  testimony  of  Va- 
lencia, on  the  ground  that  it  was  signod  by  him  without 
either  being  read  to  him  or  reading  it  over  himself. 

Examination  of  Hopkins  resumed.  Continued  from  page 
84. 

Q.  55.  What  points  of  the  rancho  did  you  see  on  the 
occasion  of  your  first  visit  ?  A.  My  recollection  is,  that  we 
went  by  land  from  Saucelito  to  the  Read  Pancli  House; 
from  thence  to  the  redwood  grove,  to  a  point  on  the  creek 
where  there  is  the  remains  of  a  saw  mill  ;  from  this  point 
\ve  went,  by  a  round-about  w^ay,  to  the  Ari^oyo  Ilolon,  near 
the  northeastern  corner  of  the  rancho  as  survej^ed  ;  and  from 
thence  to  the  neighborhood  of  the  southeastern  extremity 
of  the  rancho  as  surveyed.  In  this  expedition  I  s.iw  per- 
haps nearly  the  whole  of  the  rancho. 

Q.  56.     In  locating  the  calls  of  the  grant,  and  the  natur- 


al  objects  mentioned  in  the  espediente  of  juridical  posses- 
sion, did  joQ  require  any  aid  outside  of  the  said  record  '{ 

(Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  on  the  ground  that  it 
does  not  appear  that  this  witness  Visited  said  rancho  in  any 
official  capacity,  or  was  instructed  by  any  official  authority 
of  the  U.  S.  to  visit  and  examine  said  rancho  for  any  pur- 
pose connected  with  this  survey.) 

A.  Without  oral  testimony  there  might  be  some  difficulty 
m  locating  the  solar,  which  is  called  for  as  the  point  of  com- 
mencement in  the  juridical  measurement;  the  other  points 
called  for,  to  wit :  the  Corte  de  Madera  de  San  Pablo,  the  Point 
of  Tiburon,  the  estero  and  the  caiiada,  I  think  could  bo  as- 
certained by  an  inspection  of  the  original  title  papers  and 
an  examination  of  the  premises. 

Q.  57.  Could  you,  unaided,  find  the  boundary  on  the 
side  of  the  port  of  San  Francisco  to  the  south,  the  cove 
.which  is  formed  by  points  Tiburon  and  C.iballos  which, 
flowing  in  from  east  to  west,  terminates  in  a  short  estuary, 
and  a  valley  which  follows  the  same  direction  as  far  as  a 
wood  of  redwood  trees  ?     A.  I  could. 

Q.  58.  Could  you,  unaided,  find  the  house  of  the  ran- 
cho, the  estuary  east  of  the  house  which  disembogues  in 
said  cove,  the  sausal  near  to  it,  the  point  of  said  sausal,  and 
the  arroyo  flowing  into  the  estero  through  the  caiiada,  the 
margin  of  the  wood  of  high  redwoods  at  the  foot,  and  be- 
tween the  same  caiiada  and  some  ravines  which  form  the 
base  at  the  high  peak  called  Palmas  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Gardner  as  leading. 

A.  I  think  I  could;  however,  the  point  of  the  sausal, 
and  the  margin  of  the  wood  at  high  redwoods,  may  have 
changed  during  the  last  forty  years. 

Q.  59.  Within  what  margin  would  these  calls  enable 
you  to  locate  a  place  called  Solar  ?  A.  The  solar  referred 
to  must  be  situated  on  the  skirt  at  a  redwood  grove,  stand- 
ing at  or  near  the  foot  of  a  high  bill  or  mountain.  I  can- 
not say  how  much  margin  this  would  give  in  making  said 
location ;  the  calls  are  too  general  to  locate  the  solar  ex- 
actly from  the  title  papers. 

Q.  60.  Would  you  locate  that  Solar  somewhere  in  the 
Canada  between  the  ranch  house  and  the  foot  of  the 
mountain  't     A.  I  would. 

Q.  61.  If  you  locate  it  anywhere  in  the  caiiada,  and 
run  north,  to  an  arroyo  called  Ilolon,  wdiere  is  found  an- 
other  wood  of  redwoods  called  Corte  de  Madera  de  San 


37 

Pablo,  would  you  require   any  assistance  in  finding  that 
call  V     A.  No. 

Q.  62.  Is  there  any  uncertainty  about  the  call  of  the 
"  Serro  Alto  ?"     A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  63.  What  is  that  call  now  named?  A.  Serro,  or 
mountain  of  ''  Tamalpais." 

Q.  64.  Continuing  the  measurement  as  far  as  the  point 
of  Tiburon,  the  said  point  serving  as  a  terminus  and  mark, 
with  the  diseiio  before  you,  and  being  on  the  ground,  is 
til  ere  any  uncertainty  as  to  that  call  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde  ;  1st,  because  said  call  is 
not  fully  named  in  said  question,  it  failing  to  state  that  the 
length  of  said  call  in  said  question  was  200  cordels  of  fifty 
Castillian  varas  each;  2d,  that  the  only  guide  for  the  U.  S. 
Surveyor-General  in  this  case,  in  making  a  final  survey  of 
this  rancho,  is  the  decree  of  the  U.  S.  District  Court,  en- 
tered therein;  and,  3d,  because  the  said  diseno  of  itself 
was  not  intended  by  said  deed  to  be  the  only  guide  before 
the  Survej^or-General  (and  therefore  incompetent  to  be 
such  for  this  witness)  when  making  his  final  survey  of  this 
ranch  ;  4th,  because  it  is  incompetent. 

A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  65.  Where  does  that  line  terminate,  according  to  that 
call  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde  for  the  same  reasons  as 
above  set  forth,  and  for  the  reason  that  said  call  has  not 
been  read  to  this  witness,  nor  has  he  at  this  time  and  in 
this  connection  been  called  to  it,  and  to  the  whole  thereof; 
2d,  incompetent  until  said  specific  call,  and  the  whole 
thereof,  is  either  read  to  this  witness  or  until  it  should 
appear  that  this  witness  is  fully  acquainted  with  each  and 
every  part,  and  tlie  whole  of  said  call  as  named,  described 
in  the  record  of  juridical  possession. 

A.  According  to  that  call  it  would  terminate  at  Tiburon, 
that  is  at  the  point  where  the  land  and  water  meet. 

Q.  66.  Of  what  is  the  espediente  marked  "  JEspedienie 
sohre  el  'parage  now br ado  el  Sausalito  Solvetado  por  Don  Juan 
Read,  27  ?"  A.  It  is  the  concession  to  Juan  Read  of  the 
rancho  of  El  Corte  de  Madera  del  Presidio. 

Q.  67.  Why  is  it  entitled  in  this  way  ?  A.  Because,  in 
the  first  place,  Juan  Read  petitioned  for  the  place  of  "  El 
Sausalito,"  as  is  shown  by  the  first  petition  in  said  espedi- 
ente. 

Q.  68.  What  was  the  result  thereof?  A.  Failing,  as 
set  forth  in  his  second  petition,  to  obtain  the  place  of  "  El 


Sausalito/'  he  asked  for  the  place  of  El  Corte  de  Madem 
del  Presidio. 

Q.  69.  Where  does  this  second  petition  appear  ?  A.  In 
the  same  espediente  ahove  refer^d  to. 

Q.  70.  Did  he,  witli  his  second  petition,  present  a  new 
diseno  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde  as  incompetent,  and  not 
the  best  evidence. 

A.     The  records  seem  to  show  that  he  did  not. 

Q.  71.  Will  you  please  translate  here  the  7th  page  of  the 
espediente  refered  to  ? 

To  the  Senor  General  of  the  Territory  of  Alta  California  : 

I,  Juan  Read,  an  Irishman,  before  Your  Honor  with  all 
due  respect,  present  myself  and 'say :  That,  since  I  have 
not  been  able  to  obtain  the  place  called  "El  Sausalito,"  I 
pray  you  to  be  pleased  to  concede  me  the  place  at  "El  Corte 
do  Madera  del  Presidio,"  as  far  as  the  point  of  Tiburon,  as 
is  shown  by  the  diseiio  or  plan  that  Your  Honor  has  in 
your  possession.  Wherefore,  I  pray  Your  Honor  to  grant 
my  petition,  in  which  I  shall  receive  grace  and  favor. 

Pueblo  of  San  Rafael,  September  4th,  1834. 

JUA¥  READ. 

Marginal  Order. — Monterey,  September  23d,  1834.  Let 
this  be  annexed  to  its  antecedents.  FIGUEROA. 

Q.  72.  How  does  this  tract  of  land  appear  by  the  diseila 
or  plan  which  His  Excellency  had  in  his  petition  ?  A.  The 
diseno  or  plan  referred  to,  is  a  picture  showing  a  tract  of 
land,  forming  a  peninsula  ;  the  extreme  point  of  which,  is 
marked  *'Pta,"  point,  written  on  what  is  represented  as  the 
water,  and  the  word  Tiburon,  written  on  what  is  rejjresented 
by  the  picture  as  land ;  the  tract,  as  shown,  is  bounded  to- 
tally by  the  waters  of  the  bay,  and  on  the  nortliwest  by  a 
line  drown  upon  said  diseno  through  what  is  represented  as 
a  grove  of  timbers,  at  which  place  is  written  the  words  Corte 
de  Madera. 

Q.  73.  From  what  circumstances  does  it  appear  that 
this  diseno  was  in  his  Excellency' 's  possession  at  that  time? 
A.-  From  the  circumstance  that  it  is  found  in  the  espediente 
belonging  to  the  archives  of  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the 
former  Mexican  Government  of  California. 

Q.  74.  Does  it  appear  from  the  espediente  that  a  diseiio 
was  presented  with  the  original  petition  of  Juan  Read  for 
*'E1  Sausalito  ?" 

Objected  to  by  J.  B.  Howard,  because  the  original  petir 


B9 

tion  of  Jiiaii  Read  is  not  in  the  record  of  testimony,  as  pre- 
sented to  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Cilice, 
upon  which  the  re-snrvej  was  ordered. 

Cbjected  bv  Mr.  Mullen,  becLiuse  the  question  is  ambi- 
.<ritons,  no  particular  espcdiente  beino;  referred  to,  and  be- 
cause it  is  not  the  best  evidence,  and  further,  because  the 
diseno  concerning  which  witness  is  called  upon  to  testify, 
is  a  loose  sheet  of  paper,  not  attached  to  any  es{,)ediente 
whatever ;  nor  does  it  bear  any  internal  evidence  that  it 
Was  ever  attached  to  or  formed  a  part  of  any  espediente. 

A.  The  diseno  shows,  besides  the  tract  of  land  now 
known  as  the  Corte  de  Madera  del  Presidio,  or  Read  Rancho, 
another  tract,  situated  to  the  west,  and  which  is  now  known 
as  El  Sausalito.  Cn  tliis  tract  is  written  the  words  :  "  Ter- 
reno  que  solicta,  Don  Juan  Read  al  otro  lado  del  Pto  de 
San  Franco" — land  petitioned,  for  by  Don  Juan  Read,  on 
the  other  side  of  the  Port  of  San  Francisco.  I  think,  from 
this  description,  that  this  diseno  was  presented  by  Read, 
with  his  petition,  to  the  Governor,  for  El  Sausalito.  The 
petition  of  Read  for  El  Sausalito,  sets  out  that  he  presents 
a  diseno  with  the  same. 

Q.  75.  How  does  it  appear  that  this  is  the  same  diseno? 
A.  I  think  it  so  appears  upon  its  face,  as  set  forth  in  last 
answer. 

Q.  76.  Is  not  the  original  map  the  work  of  Read  him- 
self? A.  I  have  always  supposed  that  it  was — only  circum- 
stantially, however. 

Q.  77.  Are  not  these  various  corrections  made  in  the 
words  used  on  said  diseiio  the  corrections  made  by  De 
llarro,  to  correct  the  spelling  of  the  words  ?  A.  There  are 
several  corrections  that  appear  to  have  been  made  in  the 
spelling  of  the  words,  and  these  corrections  appear  to  have 
boen  made  by  Franco  De  Ilarro. 

Q.  78,  Specify  those  words,  the  original  spelling  and 
the  corrections.  A.  1st.  The  word  found  near  the  point, 
originally  written  ''Ubcrun,''  is  corrected  to  '' Taberon." 
2d.  In  the  words  written  originally  "/ya  de  los  Angeles^'"  the 
•abbreviation  "^a"  is  corrected  thus,  "•  ysla.''  Several 
other  words  are  not  corrected  by  rewriting,  the  writing  or 
spelling  being  simply  amended.  In  the  word  spelled  '^  pro- 
^idio,"  the  spelling  is  not  corrected.  Cn  a  closer  examina- 
tion, I  find  that  in  both  cases,  where  the  words  ^' corte  "  are 
found,  the  words  were  originally  written  ^'curta,''  and  the 
word  Sausalito  was  originally  written  ^'  SoiisolUo.'' 


40 

^  Q.  79.  Do  those  errors  indicate  a  native  or  a  foreig-iier?' 
A.  They  indicate  that  the  writing  was  originally  done  by  a 
foreigner. 

Q.  80.  Does  the  work  on  the  map  indicate  that  the  same 
was  made  by  a  landsman  or  a  sailor?  A.  From  the  fact 
that  the  soundings  appear  to  be  given  on  the  map,  it  would 
seem  to  have  been  made  by  same  one  used  to  the  sea. 

Q.  81.  Are  the  soundings  given  in  feet  or  fathoms?  A. 
I  think  in  fathoms. 

Q.  82.  Do  you  know  what  profession  Read's  was  ?  A. 
I  have  understood  that  he  was  a  seafaring  man. 

Q.  83.  How  long  has  this  map  been  in  this  espediente  ? 
A.  I  have  seen  it  in  the  espediente  for  the  last  twenty 
years  ;  and  there  is  a  certified  trace.l  copy  in  the  files  at 
the  Land  Commission,  made,  I  think,  in  1852  or  1853. 

Q.  84.  It  has  been  spoken  of  as  a  loose  paper.  Does  it 
differ  in  this  respect  from  other  papers  in  the  archives  ?  A. 
There  are  many  other  diseiios  in  the  archives  in  a  like 
condition. 

Q.  85.  Why  are  they  so?  A.  For  the  last  twenty  years 
it  has  constantly  been  necessary'  to  make  traced  copies  of 
these  diseiios,  and  to  do  so  it  is  necessary  to  separate  the 
sheets  of  the  espedientes. 

Q.  86.  How  does  this  diseno  compare  with  the  majority 
of  those  on  file  in  the  archives  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Gardner,  on  the  ground  that  those  on 
file  are  the  best  evidence. 

A.  It  is  a  more  correct  representation  of  the  country 
that  it  purports  to  picture  than  are  a  majority  of  the  disenos 
in  the  archives  of  the  places  designed  to  be  represented  by 
them. 

Q.  87.  Can  you,  without  uncertainty,  identify  the  objects 
delineated  thereon  ?     A.  1  think  that  I  can. 

Q.  88.  What  are  the  small  objects  represented  in  front 
of  the  three  points  in  the  entrance  to  the  harbor,  and  the 
point  near  the  figures  35  ?  A.I  presume  that  they  existed 
at  the  points  referred  to,  at  the  date  of  this  espediente,  since 
the  chister  of  rocks  represented  by  the  several  dots  near  the 
figures  "35,"  are  found  there  at  present,  and  I  think  are 
plainl}^  visible  from  the  beach  at  Saucelito. 

Q.  89.  Where  are  the  rocks  near  figures  35  situated  ? 
A.  They  are  situated,  I  think,  near  the  shore  of  the  penin- 
sular island,  that  is,  the  western  shore,  near  the  point  of 
said  island. 


41 

Q.  90.  Describe  tlie  objects  delineated  on  this  disefio, 
commencing  at  the  south  head.  A.  1st,  Point  Lobos;  2d, 
Fort  Toiu — at  which  there  was  anciently  a  fortification; 
a  id  where  the  fort  is  now  situated  ;  to  east  of  which  was 
tlie  former  anchorage  of  vessels  entering  the  port  of  Sau 
Francisco  ;  to  the  east  of  which  is  a  sand  point,  sometimes 
called  Strawberry  Island;  inside  of  which  is  an  estuary  or 
creek  ;  south  of  whicii  is  a  figure  representing  the  location 
of  the  old  Presidio,  still  occupied  by  the  U.  S.  troops  ;  the 
next  point  to  the  east  of  same  point  is  point  San  Jose,  on 
which  there  is  a  fortification  ;  the  objects  in  front  are,  re- 
spectively, Alcatras,  Bird  Island,  and  Arch  Rock  ;  the  cove 
immediately  east  of  Point  San  Jose  forms  what  is  now  called 
]!!s'orth  Beach  ;  following  this,  is  I^orth  Point ;  to  the  south 
of  which  is  the  point  known  as  Clark's  Point;  which  is  fol- 
lowed by  the  cove  of  Yerba  Buena;  \vhich  is  followed  by 
liincon  Point;  the  island  to  the  east  of  which  is  known  as 
Goat  Island,  or  Yerba  Buena,  the  opposite  shore  being 
c.dled  Contra  Costa.  The  figure  on  the  diseno  placed  near 
the  numbers  ''  10  "  and  "  12,"  represents  what  is  known  as 
"  Red  Rock  ;"  and  the  six  dots,  situated  between  that  rock 
and  the  shore,  represent  a  reef;  the  point  to  the  east,  rep- 
resented on  the  diseno  as  Pta  de  San  Pablo,  is  still  known 
by  the  name  of  San  Pablo  Point ;  and  the  two  small  islands 
represented  as  being  near  the  same  are  known  as  "  tke  two 
brothers.^' 

Opposite  the  Point  of  San  Pablo  is  found  the  Point  of 
San  Pedro;  between  which  two  points  are  the  two  islands 
described  on  the  diseno  as  Yslas  de  Maron,  which  are  now 
called  '*  the  two  sisters.'' 

On  the  upper  right-hand  corner  of  the  disefio  is  the 
picture  of  a  church,  which  shows  the  location  of  the  Mission 
of  San  Rafael;  near  to  which,  on  the  coast  of  the  bay,  is  the 
entrance  at  the  San  Rafael  Creek,  from  which  point,  follow- 
ing the  coast  to  the  westward,  is  reached  the  point  of  "San 
Quentin ;"  opposite  to  which  is  the  representation  of  an 
island,  which  is  the  point  at  which  the  San  Rafael  steamer 
lands  ;  being  now  connected  with  the  main  laud;  from  which 
point,  following  the  coast  towards  the  northwest,  is  reached 
the  mouth  of  a  creek,  running  down  from  what  is  represented 
to  be  a  wood  or  grove  ;  from  this  point,  following  the  coast 
towards  the  west,  the  mouth  of  another  creek  is  shown, which 
also  flows  down  from  what  is  represented  on  the  diseno  as 
a  grove  or  wood,  and  along  this  creek  is  drawn  a  line,  which 
represents  on  the  diseno  the  eastern  boundary  of  the  rancho 


42 

of  El  Corte  de  Madero  ;  from  this  point,  followino^  the  coast 
to  the  south,  there  is  a  straight  projection  sliown  on  the 
diseiio,  about  midway-  between  the  month  of  tlie  creek  above 
referred  to  and  the  point  marked  on  the  diseho  "Pta  Ti- 
buron,"  which  midway  point  is^-now  known  as  '' Cahtbrnia 
Citj^  Point."  Continuing  along  the  coast  to  the  south,  the 
place  marked  "Punta  Tiburou"  is  reached,  and  south  of 
which  is  situated  the  island  known  as  Ysla  de  los  Angeles. 
Between  Point  Tiburnou  and  the  southwestern  extremity  of 
the  peninsula,  there  is  a  small  bay  or  cover,  as  shown  upon 
the  disefio ;  reaching  the  extreme  southwestern  point  of  the 
peninsula,  there  is  found  near  the  same  a  cluster  of  rocks,  as 
shown  upon  the  diseno. 

From  the  point  last  referred  to,  following  tlie  coast  of  the 
ensenada  to  the  north,  the  mouth  of  a  creek  is  reached  at 
the  head  of  said  ensenada,  which  creek  is  represented  as 
flowing  down  from  a  grove  of  timber  ;  in  point  of  fact,  two 
creeks  are  shown  upon  the  diseiio  as  rumiing  into  said  en- 
senada ;  one  of  these  creeks  is  now  known  as  the  Arroyo 
del  Corte  Madero  del  Presidio. 

Following  the  eastern  shore  of  this  ensenada  towards  the 
south,  about  two-thirds  of  the  distance  from  the  head  of  the 
same  and  its  entrance,  and  near  the  shore,  is  represented  a 
house,  marked  Sausalito;  following  the  coast,  its  extreme 
southern  point  is  reached,  which  was  formerly  and  now  called 
Point  Cabal  los,  the  next  point  thereto  being  known  by  the 
name  of  "Lime  Point." 

From  this  point,  following  the  shore  to  the  westward,  ia 
reached  Point  Bonito,  which  forms  the  northern  boundary 
of  the  entrance  to  the  harbor  of  San  Francisco. 

Besides  the  objects  above  described,  tliere  are  represented 
on  said  diseiio  certain  lines  which,  I  presume,  are  intended 
to  represent  boundary  lines,  together  with  figures  of 
lines,  etc. 

Q.  91.  How  does  this  diseiio  correspond,  in  scale  and 
topography,  with  the  actual  position  of  these  objects  on  the 
ground  ?  A.  I  think  that  it  is  approximately  correct,  and 
that  it  is  a  very  good  rude  picture  of  the  tract  of  country 
intended  to  be  represented  thereb}^  and  is  one  among  the 
most  correct  diseiios  found  in  the  Spanish  archives. 

Q.  92.  Is  the  peninsula,  the  Potrero  of  Tiburon,  included 
in  the  boundaries  of  the  rancho  on  this  diseno  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  as  it  does  not  appear  in 
this  record  that  this  witness  has  defined  any  boundaries  of 
this  rancho,  as  represented  upon  or  deduced  from  this  diseno; 


4B 

llic  most  that  has  been  said  by  said  witness,  a  presumption 
that  certain  lines  represented  on  said  diseno  he  presumes 
?ire  intended  to  represent  boundarj  lines,  but  not  necessarily 
boundary  lines  of  this  or  any  other  rancho. 

A.  I  think  that  the  picture  represented  by  the  diseno 
embraces  the  potrero  referred  to  in  the  question. 

Q.  03.  Look  at  the  diseno,  of  winch  a  copy  is  filed 
herein,  and  the  original  is  found  in  State  papers,  Vol.  X. 
Missions,  1830  to  1846,  and  state  what  it  is  ?  A.  It  is  a 
map  showing  the.  common  lands  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Ka- 
fael ;  and  is  accompanied  by  a  record  found  in  the  volume 
referred  to,  showing  the  proceedings  taken  in  measuring  and 
setting  apart  said  kinds  by  the  government, authorities;  said 
map  also  shows  portions  of  surrounding  country. 

(J.  94.  Is  the  potrero,  designated  the  official  map  as 
"*'  Penmsular  Island,''  represented  on  said  diseno  ;  if  so,  how? 
A.  It  is  ;  by  a  well  defined  small  peninsula,  connected  with 
the  main  land  by  a  narrow  neck. 

Q.  95.  Look  at  the  disoiio,  a  traced  copy  of  which  is 
filed  herein,  and  state  what  it  is  ?  A.  It  is  a  copy  of  the 
E-ancho  El  Sausalito,  certified  to  be  correct  by  Jose  Z.  Fer- 
nandez, acting  as  Secretary  of  State. 

Q.  96.  Please  translate  certificate  endorsed  thereon.  A. 
I,  the  undersigned,  Secretary  of  the  Departmental  Junta  of 
the  Californias,  temporarily  incharged  with  the  office  of  the 
Secretary  of  State,  certify  that  the  foregoing  plan  or  map 
is  faithfully  taken  from  its  original,  which  is  found  in  the 
respective  espediente,  upon  which  was  made  the  concession, 
given  by  the  government  to  the  interested  party,  and  the 
vapproval  of  the  Most  Excellent  Junta,  which  is  found  in  the 
said  office  of  the  Secretary,  of  which  I  am  temporarily  in 
charo-e.  In  witness  whereof,  I  give  the  present  certificate 
in  Monterey,  on  the  20th  of  October,  1840. 

JOSE  Z.  FERJSTAi^DEZ. 

Q.  97.  Does  the  said  potrero  appear  on  said  diseno  ;  and 
if  so,  how  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde  as  immaterial. 

A.  It  does — as  a  small  peninsula,  connected  with  the 
main  land  by  a  narrow  neck — that  is,  the  main  land  de- 
scribed on  said  diseno  as  "  Tiburon." 

Q.  98.  Look  at  the  diseno  in  the  espediente  of  Saucelito, 
of  which  a  certified  copy  is  tiled  herein,  and  say  if  the  said 
potrero  is  represented  thereon,  and  if  so,  how  ?  A.  It  is  ; 
as  a  small  peninsula  connected  with  the  main  land  of  Tibu- 
ron by  a  narrow  neck. 


44 

Q.  99.  Is  Tamalpais  Monntaiii  represented  on  tlie  certi- 
fied copy,  and  what  is  il  there  called?  A.  It  is,  and  is 
called  Cerro  de  San  Rafael. 

Q.  100.  Do  yon  find  on  that  map  the  name  of  Tanrial- 
pais  ;  and  if  so,  to  w]]at  is  it  applied  ?  A.  I  find  the  name 
of  Tamalpais  on  said  map ;  it  is  placed  at  or  near  a  spot 
m.arked  by  a  small  circle,  at  the  southwestern  skirt,  or  on 
the  southwestern  slope  of  the  Cerro  de  San  Rafael,  as 
marked  on  said  diseiio  ;  what  this  small  circle  indicates,  I 
do  not  know. 

Q.  101.  Did  you  locate  the  call  for  the  rancheria  '"^  An- 
imas," or  the  remains  of  a  rancheria  called  "  Resgumos  de 
las  Animas  ?  A.  I  do  not  think  that  I  did  so,  as  to  be  able 
now  to  identify  said  place  on  the  diseiio. 

Q.  102.  Do  you  find  the  same  name  on  either  of  the 
other  diseiios — and  if  so,  to  what  is  it  applied  ?  A.  I  find 
it  on  the  map  of  the  common  lands  at  the  pueblo  of  San 
Rafael;  on  which  map  the  place  '- Aniinas,''  is  located,  on 
the  southern  boundary  of  the  lands  of  said  pueblo,  as 
shown  on  said  map  referred  to,  at  a  point  nearly  north  of 
the  point  shown  upon  said  diseiio,  as  the  southwestern  ex- 
tremity at  Tiburon,  and  on  the  eastern  slope  of  what  is 
designed  to  represent  a  high  hill  or  peak. 

Q.  103.  Did  you  see  any  remains,  or  indications,  such 
as  are  sometimes  called  remains  of  an  Indian  rancheria  ;  if 
so,  where  ?  A.  I  saw  such  remains,  but  cannot  now  desig- 
nate, on  the  map,  the  place;  that  is,  I  saw  shell  mounds, 
which  are  sometimes  called  remains  of  Indian  rancherias. 

Q.  104.  Did  you  visit  this  rancho  again;  and  if  so, 
when  and  with  whom?  A.  I  did;  about  tw^o  years  since, 
with  Col.  Leander  Ransom  and  Mr.  Valentine — Mr.  Thomas 
B.  Valentine. 

Q.  105.  For  what  purpose  ?  A.  For  the  purpose  par- 
ticularly of  examining  the  northern  boundary  of  the  rancho, 
as  called  for  in  the  record  of  juridical  possession. 

Q.  106.  In  what  capacity  ?  A.  I  went  at  the  request  of 
the  parties  in  interest,  and  also  at  the  request  of  Col.  Ran- 
som. 

Q.  107.  In  what  capacity  and  for  what  purpose  did  Col. 
Ransom  go  there  on  that  occasion  ?  A.  He  went  as  a  U.  S. 
Deputy-Surveyor,  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  preliminary 
examination  of  the  tract  to  be  surveyed. 

Q.  108.  Did  you  at  any  time  visit  the  said  ground  in 
company  with  anv  of  the  parties  to  the  juridical  possession? 
A.  I  did. 


45 

Question  108  objected  to  bj  Mullen  &  Hyde  as  incam- 
p3tent. 

Q.  109.     When  and  with  whom  ? 

Same  objection  as  above. 

A.  On  the  occasion  of  my  first  visit,  with  Jose  de  la  Cruz 
Sanchez,  one  of  the  parties  present  at  the  giving  of  juridi- 
cal possession. 

Q.  110.  Did  he  accompany  you  in  your  examination  of 
the  ground? 

Objected  to  as  incompetent  and  immaterial,  by  Mullen  & 
Hyde,  it  appearing  that  this  witness  visited  the  premises  in 
a  private  capacity,  and  at  the  request  simply  of  some  parties 
in  interest,  without  naming  these  parties,  and  is  irrelevant. 

A.     He  did. 

Q.  111.  Did  he  point  out  to  you  the  extent  of  the  juri- 
dical possession  on  the  east,  south  and  southwest,  and  if  so, 
what  was  it? 

Same  objection,  bv  Mullen  &  Hyde,  as  made  to  question 
110. 

A.  He  did ;  on  the  east,  the  Arroyo  Holon  and  the  bay; 
on  the  south,  the  Point  Tiburon,  and"  on  the  southwest,  the 
ensenada  and  the  creek. 

Q.  112.  How  does  the  extreme  line  of  the  salt  marsh 
correspond  with  the  line  of  ordinary  high  water  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  because  it  is  not  shown 
that  this  witness  is  an  expert  on  such  matters,  or  as  a  sur- 
veyor, or  that  he  visited  said  rancho  for  the  purpose  of  mak- 
ing such  examinations,  or  that  while  there  he  made  such 
examinations. 

A.  I  think,  from  my  general  knowledge  of  such  matters, 
that  the  exterior  line  of  the  salt  marsh  corresponds  approx- 
imately with  the  line  of  ordinary  high  water;  however,  I 
did  not  make  an  examination  of  this  question  in  this  case. 

Q.  113.  bo  you  know  what  has  been  the  effect  of  hy- 
draulic mining  upon  the  rivers  of  California  ? 

Objected  to  as  immaterial  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  and  in- 
definite. 

A,  I  have  understood,  and  believe  it  has  been,  to  cause 
the  channels  of  the  rivers  to  be  to  some  extent  filled  up; 
and  I  know  that  the  water  from  this  cause  has  become 
charged  with  mud,  which  I  presume  is  deposited  somewhere 
before  the  waters  of  the  rivers  enter  the  ocean. 

Q.  114.  Do  you  know  what  effect  this  cause  has  had  upon 
the  marsh  and  tule  lands  on  the  Bay  of  San  Francisco  ? 


46 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde  as  irrelevant,  as  it  d^aei^ 
not  appear  that  any  of  the  calls  of  this  rancho,  as  recorded 
in  the  record  of  juridical  measurement,  were  measured  to  or 
bordered  on  any  tule  or  marsh'  lands  of  the  Bay  of  San 
Francisco. 

A.     From  personal  observation,  no. 

Q.  115.     As  a  scientific  fact? 

Objected  to,  as  not  calling  for  the  best  evidence. 

A.  From  my  knowledge  of  the  physical  laws  of  nature^ 
I  think  that  the  effect  would  be  to  fill  up  such  places  on  the 
shores,  where  the  currents  would  naturally  cause  such  de- 
posits to  be  made. 

Cross-Examination  by  Mullen  ^  Hyde, 

Q.  116.  What  official  position  do  you  rww  fill  under  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  ?  A.  I  am  not  now  in  the 
employment  of  the  Government. 

Q.  117.  Give  the  date  when  you  first  became  acquainted 
with  the  land  itself,  now  called  Rancho  del  Corte  de  Ma- 
dera del  Presidio.  A.  I  was  first  on  the  land  about  three 
years  since. 

Q.  118.  Had  you,-  prior  to  said  date,  any  knowledge  of 
the  boundary  lines  on  the  ground,  or  the  calls  of  juridical 
possession  on  the  ground  of  said  rancho?  A.  I  liad  not; 
the  only  knowledge  I  had  was  acquired  from  an  examina- 
tion of  the  original  title  papers. 

Q.  119.  You  state,  that  you  have  been  familiar  with  the 
calls  of  the  boundaries  of  this  rancho  for  the  last  20  years  ; 
I  will  now  read  you  in  Spanish  the  first  call,  as  set  forth  in 
the  record  of  the  juridical  possession  at  said  rancho  :  "  Pie- 
ron  principio  a  dha.  medida  desde  el  solar  que  mora  a  la. 
parte  del  poniente  ;  y  puestos  a  la  falda  y  pie  de  las  lomas 
que  quedan  a  dho.  rumbo  y  a  orillas  del  monte  de  Palos  Co- 
lorados  llamado  el  Corte  de  Madera  del  Presidio  ;  se  dio 
principio  a  dha.  medida,  y  caminando  de  sur  a  norte,  se 
medieron  hta.  un  arroyo  llamado  Holom,  donde  se  halla 
otro  monte  de  palos  colorados  que  llanian  Corte  de  Madera 
de  San  Pablo,  noventa  cordeles,  de  euarenta  varas,  donde  el 
interesado  fijando  un  punto  conocido  por  senal,  dijo  que  alii 
pondria  una  mojonera."  What  is  the  meaning  in  English 
of  the  words  "y  caminando  de  sur  a  norte  se  medieron  hta. 
un  arroyo  llamado  Holom,  donde  se  halla  otro  monte  de  pa- 
los colorados  que  llaman  Corte  de  Madera  de  San  Pablo^ 
noventa  cordeles,  de  ciucuenta  vara&,"   as  set  forth  in  the 


4T 

said  call  ?  A.  The  portion  of  Spanish  last  above  quoted, 
^eans :  "and  proceeding*  from  south  to  north,  the  measure- 
ment was  made  as  far  as  the  arroyo  called  Ilolom,  when  there 
IS  found  another  wood  of  redwoods,  called  Corte  de  Madera 
«de  San  Pablo,  ninety  cords,  of  fifty  varas  each." 

Q.  120.  What  then  was  the  length  of  this  first  call  of  the 
.juridical  call  of  the  juridical  possession  of  this  rancho  ?  A. 
Ninety  cords  of  fifty  varas  each. 

Q.  121.  What  is  the  meaning  in  English  of  the  following 
words  in  Spanish :  "  donde  el  interesado,  fi'jando  un  punto 
Hionocido  por  serial  ?"  A.  Where  the  interested  part}', 
fixing  a  known  point  as  a  sign. 

Q.  122.  What  is  the  meaning  in  English  of  the  follow- 
ing words  in  Spanish  :  "  dijo  que  alli  pondria  una  mojonera  ?" 
A.  And  he  said  that  he  would  place  at  that  point  a  monu^ 
ment,  or  lund  mark. 

Q.  123.  At  what  point  was  that  at  which  that  monument 
was  to  be  placed  ?  A.  At  the  end  of  the  line,  as  above 
described. 

Q.  124.  Is  your  last  answer  expressed  by  and  included 
in  the  Spanish  word  "alli,"  as  written  above?     A.     It  is. 

Q.  125.  W^ould  not  a  line  of  measurement  of  this  rancho, 
therefore,  be  a  line  drawn  from  the  solar  going  northwardly 
and  in  length  ninety  cords  of  fifty  varas  each,  to  a  point 
where  the  interested  party  fixed  a  known  point  as  a  sign 
on  the  Arroyo  Holon,  and  at  which  point  a  monument  or 
land  mark  was  promised  to  be  placed  by  the  party  in  in- 
terest ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Sharp,  as  being  a  question  of  law,  and 
not  leading  to  elucidate  any  issue  of  fact  in  this  case. 

A.  1  think  that  the  point  at  which  the  sign  was  placed  by 
the  interested  party,  as  the  place  the  monument  was  to  be 
placed,  would  designate  the  terminus  of  the  first  measure- 
ment above  referred  to. 

Q.  126.  What  was  the  object,  under  the  Spanish  cus- 
toms in  California,  of  establishing  mojoneras  at  the  ends  of 
lines  of  measurements  when  giving  juridical  possessions  of 
ranchos,  and  which  fact  is  so  often  referred  to  in  the  archives 
of  this  office?  A.  For  the  purpose  of  segregating  the  land 
granted  from  the  public  domain,  and  to  establish  the  bound- 
aries of  the  grantee  with  his  colindantes. 

Q.  127.  Explain  how  the  establishment,  at  a  well-known 
point,  of  a  monument,  say,  for  instance,  of  masonry,  would 
be  the  establishing  a  boundary  of  a  rancho  with  a  colin- 
•dante  ?     A.  Practically,  there  would  be  no  necessity  for  the 


is 

establishment  of  an  artificial  monument  of  masonry  at  a 
tvell-knoivn  point  to  fix  a  boundary  with  a  colinclante. 

Q.  128.  You  say  that  the  word  '' punta  "  means  point; 
does  it  not  also  mean  headland' or  promontory,  and  is  it  not 
often  used  in  California,  as,  for  instance,  Punta  delosReys  ? 
A.  It  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  a  point,  wdien  used  in  the 
sense  above  referred  to,  except  in  connection  with  some 
matter:  thus,  w^e  say,  the  point  of  a  needle,  the  point  of  a 
sword,  &c.  ;  and  so  in  all  cases  in  which  it  is  used:  thus, 
we  say,  the  point  of  a  headland,  cape,  &c.  ;  the  term  is  often 
applied  to  headkihds  in  all  parts  of  the  world. 

Q.  129.  AYhat  is  the  meaning  in  Eng-lish  of  the  words 
in  Spanish,  '-' liasta  elfin  de  la  'paaiaf  A.  It  mean-?,  "to 
the  end  of  the  point." 

Q.  130.  Assnmino:  that  the  word  '^  punta,'"  as  used  in 
this  case  when  the  words  "punta  del  taburon  ''  are  used,  if 
it  was  the  intention  of  the  measurers  of  the  Rancho  of  Corto 
de  Madera  del  Presidio,  in  measuring  from  the  Arroyo 
Holon,  to  go  to  the  end  of  the  headland  or  promontory  of 
Tiburon,  would  they  i^oi  have  used  either  the  words  "  Jiasta 
elfin  de  la  Panta  del  7'iburon,''  or  ^ome  words  similar  thereto, 
and  would  they  have  ceased  their  measurements  before 
reaching  said  point,  and,  if  they  had  done  so,  wxnild  not  so 
have  expressed  it  ?  A.  I  do  not  think  that  in  making  such 
measurement  the  words  "  hasta  elfin  de  la  Punta  del  Tiburon  " 
would  necessarily,  or  should  be  used ;  and,  supposing  the 
line  to  have  been  exactly  measured,  then,  if  the  measure- 
ment stopped  short  of  the  point  called  for,  the  discrepancy 
between  the  measurement  and  the  point  called  for  should  be 
explained. 

Q.  131.  What  do  you  mean  hy  ^' exactly  measured^'  as 
by  you  used  in  the  foregoing  answer?  A.  I  mean  being 
carefully  measured  by  a  surveyor's  chain  or  cord,  or  by 
triangnlation. 

Q.  132.  Suppose  that  in  this  case  the  measurers  of  the 
Rancho  of  '' Corte  de  Madera  del  Presidio,"  in  going  from 
the  Arroyo  Holon  southwardly,  should,  have  exactly  mea- 
sured two  hundred  cordeles  of  fifty  varas  each,  would  it 
have  been  necessary  to  establish  at  the  end  of  said  line,  and 
place  there  a  corresponding  artificial  monument,  say  of 
masonry,  if  a  well-known  point  marked  there  the  end  of 
such  line  of  measurement  as  a  mojonera,  according  to  your 
own  theory,  as  expressed  on  ]3age  132  ?  A.  Practically,  it 
would  not  have  been  necessary. 


49 

Q.  133.  Please  look  at  the  official  map,  made  from  the 
Ransom  Alai  dt  survey,  of  September  and  October,  1873, 
and  June,  187-1,  and  state  whether  Richardson's  Bay  is  not 
formed  by  tlie  headland  of  Tiburon  and  headland  of  Ca- 
bal lo.-',  with  the  main  land.     A.  It  is. 

Q.  138.  From  your  long  and  intimate  familiarity  with 
the  custom  of  the  Mexican  Government  in  making  grants  of 
land  in  California,  and  especially  to  persons  therein  of  for- 
eign birth,  does  it  a;)pear  thut  said  government  made  grants 
of  land  at  prominent  headlands  or  points,  of  value  for  mili- 
tary purposes,  especially  in  and  around  the  Bay  of  San 
Francisco,  having  no  reference  to  this  rancho  (Corte  de  Ma- 
dera) ?  A.  I  find  the  grant  made  to  Richardson  of  El  Sau- 
salito,  who  was  a  naturalized  foreigner.  I  don't  now  think 
of  any  other  made  to  foreigners  of  lands  embracing  prom- 
inent points  on  the  bay  of  San  Francisco.  Angel  Island, 
situated  opposite  Point  Tiburon,  was  granted  to  Antonio  Ma. 
Osio,  who  was  a  Mexican  citizen,  which  was,  however,  re 
jected  by  the  courts  of  the  United  States. 

Q.  135.  What  is  the  meaning,  in  FiUglish,  of  the  Spanish 
words :  '*  C-)rte  de  Madera  del  Presidio  ?"  A.  The  place  of 
timber  cutting  of  the  presi<iio. 

Q.  136.  What  presidio  do  you  thiid^  was  referred  to  in 
this  name  ?  A.  The  presidio  of  San  Francisco.  I  think 
the  presidio  occupied  the  place  now  occupied  by  the  U.  S. 
troops,  which  is  near  Fort  Point,  and  marked  presidio,  in 
the  diseno  referred  to  in  my  testimony. 

Q.  137.  It  appears  in  evidence  in  this  case  that  the  pe- 
ninsula or  head  land,  represented  on  the  official  plat  and  ex- 
tending northwestwardly  towards  the  figures  and  letters  in 
red  ink  "  T.  1,  K  R.  6  W,"  is  now,  and  for  a  long  time 
prior  to  this  date,  was  called  Tiburon  ;  and  that  the  place 
called  Corte  de  Madera  del  Presidio  has  been  fixed  by  wit- 
nesses in  this  case  as  being  near  the  Arroyo  del  Corte  de 
Madera;  do  you  know  of  any  reason  why  the  applicant  Read, 
in  this  case,  in  makino:  his  petition  for  a  grant,  should  de- 
scribe it  as  Corte  de  Madera  del  Presidio,  in  preference  to 
calling  it  Rancho  de  Tiburon  ?  A.  The  only  reason  that  I 
can  give,  is  that  the  ''Corte  de  Madera"  w^as  probably  a 
more  noted  place  than  Tiburon,  since,  from  early  times  it 
was  the  ])lace  from  whence  supplies  of  timber  were  received 
for  the  use  of  the  presidio  and  other  places. 

Q.  138.  Was  it  not  the  custom  in  California  for  peti- 
tioners for  land  to  describe  or  name  the  same,  either  accord- 
ing to  the  special  names  they  bore,  at  the  date  of  the  peti- 


50 

tidn,  or  arising  from  the  uses  or  purposes  to  \vl]ieli  snid 
places  were  appropriated  by  the  petitioners  at  tlie  date  of 
the  petition  ?  A.  The  ranchos  petitioned  for,  when  not 
named  after  some  saint,  generally  took  their  names  from 
some  use,  legend,  or  circumstance  connected  therewith. 

Q.  139.  Is  there  any  timber  at  the  present  time  grow- 
ing on  the  place  called  Tiburon,  or  are  there  any  evidences 
that  any  timber  has  grown  on  said  place;  and  by  Tiburon 
I  mean  the  headland  or  peninsula  heretofore  spoken  of; 
and  by  timber  I  mean  madera,  or  building  material.  A. 
I  do  not  think  that  there  is  any  building  timber  found 
upon  the  southern  portion  of  the  tract  referred  to  as  Tibu- 
ron, but  I  have  never  examined  the  place  to  ascertain  the 
fact  in  relation  thereto. 

Q.  140.  What  is  the  force  of  the  expression,  "Se  con- 
tinuo  la  mededa  hta  la  punta  del  Taboron,  I  se  mederon 
doscientos  Cordeles  if"  A.  It  means  "The  measurement 
was  continued  as  far  as  the  point  of  Tiburon,  and  there 
were  measured  two  hundred  cords. 

Q.  140.  Supposing  each  cord  was  fifty  varas  in  length, 
what  would  be  the  length  of  the  line  as  mentioned  in  the 
second  call  of  the  Juridical  possession  in  the  case  of  this 
rancho?  A.  Ten  thousand  varas  would  be  the  length  of 
the  call  of  200  cords. 

Q.  141.  What  would  be  the  length  in  varas  of  the  sec- 
ond line  of  measurement,  as  measured  by  those  who  gave 
juridical  possession  of  this  rancho,  as  set  forth  in  the  record 
of  the  juridical  measurement  thereof?  A.  The  second! 
line,  as  called  for  by  the  measurement,  is  10,000  varas. 

Q.  142.  riease  examine  the  original  record  of  juridical 
possession  and  state  whether  the  said  measures  placed  or 
promised  to  place  at  the  end  of  said  line  of  measurement  a 
land  mark.  A.^  They  did  not  place  or  promise  to  place  at 
the  end  of  said  line  a  land-mark ;  but  they  said  that  said 
point  should  serve  as  a  terminus  and  sign. 

Q.  143.  What  is  the  meaning  in  EngUsh  of  the  words 
in  Spanish,  "  Ofiecio  poner  alii  la  correspondente  mojo- 
nera?"  A.  He  offered  to  place  there  the  corresponding 
land  mark  or  monument. 

Q.  144.  Does  not  the  word  thei-e  mean  the  place  where 
the  measurers  terminated  or  ended  the  measurement  of  the 
line  at  measurement  of  ten  thousand  varas  in  length,  and 
extending  southwardly  from  the  point  on  the  Ilolon,  where 
they  promised  to  place  the  first  land-mark,  at  the  end  of 
the  first  line  of  measurement  ?     A.  The  measurers,  or  the 


51 

interestecl  parties,  doubtless  offered  to  place  the  laiKl-mark 
"at  a  point  which  they  considered  as  the  southern  boundary 
■of  ihe  land  to  be  measured. 

•  Q.  145.  Suppose  that  there  la}- to  the  east  of  the  Arroyo 
of  Ilolon,  a  body  of  Jlrm  land,  say  of  the  extent  often 
miles  to  the  eastward ;  and  suppose  that  there  was  an  ex- 
tent of  firm  land  south  of  the  Ilolon,  and  for  twenty  miles, 
^nd  out  of  which  the  rancho  of  Corte  de  Madera  del  Presi- 
dio was  to  be  carved,  would  not,  in  that  case,  be  the  ends  of 
the  calls  in  this  record  of  juridical  possession,  be  at  the  ends 
■of  the  lines,  where  the  lines  of  measurement  terminated  ? 
A.  They  certainly  would,  unless  there  were  some  promi- 
nent points  called  for  as  land-marks,  and  as  boundaries,  in 
which  case  the  certain/A/  of  the  landmarks  would  control 
'uncertain  measurements. 

Q.  146.  What  is  the  meaning  in  English  of  the  Spanish 
word  "del  ?"  A.  It  means  "  of  the,"  being  a  combination 
of  the  preposition  "  de"  (of)  and  the  article  '-el  "  (the). 

Q.  147.  What  then  do  you  understand  the  translation  in 
English  to  be  of  tlie  words:  '-'la  puata  del  tiburonf  A. 
They  mean  ^' the  point  of  the  Tiburon.'' 

Q.  148.  Are  you  acquainted  with  a  Spanish  dictionary 
oompiled  by  Mariano  Velascpiez,  commonly  known  as  the 
Dictionary  of  Velasquez  ?  A.  I  have  some  acquaintance  with 
said  dictionary. 

Q.  149.  Is  it  recognized  as  one  of  the  standard  authori- 
ties for  the  purposes  of  translation  ?  A.  I  think  it  is  in  gen- 
eral use  for  such  purpose. 

Q.  150.  Will  you  please  turn  to  a  copy  of  said  diction- 
ary, and  read  the  first  three  defiuitionsof  the  word  '•'- ])untaP' 
A.  1st,  Point,  the  sharp  end  of  an  instrument ;  2d,  extremity 
of  anything  which  terminates  in  an  angle;  top,  head,  sum- 
mit ;  8d,  Point,  headland,  promontory. 

Q.  15L  Please  look  at  the  new  dictionary  of  the  Span- 
ish language,  published  by  the  Spanish  Academy,  3d  edi- 
tion, as  annotated  by  Don  Vicente  Salva,  and  write  in  Span- 
ish the  words  there  given  as  a  definition  of  the  word  punta, 
beginning  with  the  word  "  Un  pedazo,"  and  ending  with 
the  word  "  promontorium,"  and  give  us  your  translation  in 
English.  A.  Un  pedazo  de  tierra  que  rea  angostando  y  en- 
trando  dentro  del  mer,  ''  promontoriiini/'  the  translation  of 
which  is  :  "A  piece  of  land  which  goes  on  narrowing  and 
entering  into  the  sea." 

Q.  152.  How  does  the  dictionary  rank  as  an  authority 
for  the  meaning  of  words  ?     I  refer  to  the  last  dictionary 


52 

from  wliicli  you  have  read — that  is,  the  cTietioiiary  of  the 
Spanish  Acafleraj.     A,  It  is  considered  as  a  standard  work. 

Mr.  Valentine  objects  to  qnestion  lol,  reserving  the  rea- 
sons, to  be  given  by  his  attorney,  Mr.  Brooks. 

Q.  153.  In  the  light  of  the  authorities  from  which  you 
have  read,  would  not  the  words  "/a  Punta  del  Tiburon  "  be 
also  translated  by  the  words  in  English  as  follows  :  "the  top 
of  the  tiburon  ?  A.  Taking  the  definition  of  the  words  ''  la 
punta,"  as  given  by  the  dictionary  of  the  Spanish  Academy, 
I  think  not. 

Q.  154.  Taking  the  definition  of  the  words,  as  given  by 
Velasquez,  would  not  the  words  '^  la  Punta  del  Tthn.ron  "  be 
translated  into  English  by  the  words  "  the  top  of  the  Tiburon  f 
A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  155.  Taking  the  definition  of  the  words  "  la  punta," 
as  given  by  Velasquez,  would  not  the  words  la  Punta  del 
Tiburon  be  also  translated  into  English  by  the  words,  the 
promontory  of  the  Tiburon  ?  A.  It  might  be  so  translated  ; 
but  if  so,  I  do  not  think  that  it  would  convey  the  meaning 
intended  to  be  given  said  words  by  the  writer  thereof. 

Q.  156.  Taking  the  same  words,  aa  given  by  the  same 
authority,  would  they  not  be  translated  into  English  by  the 
words,  the  headland  of  the  Tiburon  ?  A.  If  so  translated,  it, 
would  not  be  correct.  It  might  be  translated  the  point  of 
the  headland — that  is,  to  correctly  convey  the  meaning  of 
the  writer. 

Q.  157.  Please  look  at  diagram  or  plat  of  the  rancho  of 
'^  Corte  de  Madera  del  Presidio^''  which  is  attached  to  the 
field  notes  of  Leander  Kansom,  of  November  and  December, 
1873,  which  is  marked  in  blue  pencil  "  383,"  and  also 
marked  in  red  ink  ''including  the  marsh  land,''  and  upon 
which  is  topographically  represented  a  place  marked 
"  Mount  Tiburon.''  Please  state  if  said  measurers  of  Corte 
de  Madera  del  Presidio,  in  measuring  a  line  from  the  Ilolon 
of  200  cordeles  of  fifty  varas  each,  should  have  terminated 
their  measurement  at,  or  near  the  foot  or  summit  of  said 
Mount  Tiburon,  would  not  such  fact  have  been  expressed 
by  the  words,  "  hasta  la  punta  del  IWuron,  y  sirviendo  de 
termino  y  senat  dicha  punta  V 

Objected  to  by  J.  B.  Howard,  for  the  U.  S.,  and  the  U. 
S.  District  Attorney,  on  the  ground  that  the  field  notes 
referred  to  are  not  filed  in  the  case.  2d.  That  the  plat 
attached  to  said  field  note  refers  to  a  survey  made  in  October, 
1873,  whereas  the  field  notes  refer  to  a  survey  made  in 
N"ovember  and  December,  1873 ;    said  plat  excluding  the 


53 

marsh  lands,  and  said  field  notes  including  the  marsh  lands; 
and  because  said  papers,  as  exhibits,  arj  not  offered,  and  are 
immaterial,  irrelevant  and  incompetent. 

A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  158.  Please  look  at  same  map  and  state  whether  yoa 
can  indicate  thereon,  and  if  so,  please  do  so,  a  line  which, 
drawn  from  the  Arroyo  Holon,  represented  on  said  diagram, 
and  extending  southerly,  "  hasta  la  Panta  del  2'lburon,'' 
would  measure  10,000  Castillan  varas,  taking  as  your  unit  of 
measure  a  surveyor's  chain,  which  is  23.73  varas  long,  at  or 
near  what  point  on  said  diagram  would  the  end  of  such  line 
reach  ?  A.  By  referring  to  said  map,  and  applying  thereto 
a  scale,  I  find  that  a  line  drawn  from  the  Holon  southerly 
10,000  varas  would  not  reach  "  hasta  la  Panta  del  Tiburon  " 
(as  far  as  the  Point  of  the  Tiburon),  but  would  terminate 
short  of  said  point,  and  near  a  place  marked  on  the  diugram 
referred  to,  ''Ml.  Tiburon:' 

Same  objection  by  Air.  Howard,  for  the  U.  S.,  as  to  ques- 
tion 157. 

Q.  159.  Placing  youi'self  on  the  official  plat  of  the  survey 
of  the  Rancho  of  Oorte  de  Madera  del  Presidio,  and  a  place 
marked  Post  480  thereon,  what  would  a  line,  extending 
from  said  point  to  the  west,  and  94  cordeles  of  50  varas  each 
in  length,  reach  ?  A.  Ninety-four  cordeles  measured  to  the 
west,  from  Post  480,  would  reach  a  point  in  the  bay,  a  little 
to  the  south  of  Strawberry  Point. 

Q.  160.  Taking  the  first  map  referred  to  and  placing 
yourself  at  a  place  marked  thereon  "  Mount  Taboroii^''  and 
measuring  the  same  number  of  cordeles,  to-wit,  94  of  50 
varas  each,  and  measuring  w^estwardly  towards  the  lieud  of 
the  "  estero,"  which  is  near  the  base  marked  "House  of 
John  Read,"  and  represented  east  of  said  house,  and  state 
where  on  said  ranch  the  end  of  said  measurement  would 
terminate  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Howard  for  the  U.  S.  and  pre- 
emption claimants,  on  the  ground  that  the  natural  monu- 
ment being  established  as  Point  Tiburon,  and  the  point  ot 
the  Sausal,  courses  and  distances  are  subordinate,  and  the 
question  immaterial. 

A.  Looking  at  tlie  first  map  referred  to,  and  applying  a 
scale  thereto,  I  find  that  a  line  measured  westwardly  from 
the  point  on  said  map  marked  ''  31ount  Taboron,^'  a  distance 
of  4,700  varas,  in  the  direction  of  the  point  on  said  map 
marked  '^Juan  Bead's  adobe  house,''  ends  at  a  point  on  said 
map,  between  B  and  E,  wdiich  point  is  about  teu  chains 


H 

short  of  the  point  on  said  map  marked  "  Juan  Head's  adobe 
hov^eJ' 

Q.  161,  It  has  been  state<l  in  evidence  by  a  witness  \\V 
this  case,  who  has  known  the  the  same  lor  thirty-tive  years^ 
that  Tibnron,  or  the  place  Tiburon,  to  the  western  bound- 
ary of  the  official  plat,  Kow  will  you  translate  into  En- 
glish the  Spanish  words,  ''Curie  de  Madera  del  Presidio  f* 
A,  The  woi'ds  referre;!  to  mean  in  English,  «The  timber 
cutting  of  the  Presidio/' 

Q.  162.  How  far  distant  from  Racoon  Straits  is  there 
any  timber  growing  at  the  present  time  on  the  land  in 
qiestio  i  ?     A,  I  cann(»t  say, 

Q,  163.  What  particular  kind  of  timl>er  is  referred  to  in 
the  title  papers  ol  this  casij  ?     A,     Redwood  timber. 

Q,  164.  What  is  the  oiKeial  name  of  the  ranch  that  Juan 
Read  peti[ione<l  for  in  this  case — or  the  land  that  he  peti- 
tioned fbr  ?     A,     <■'  El  Corte  de  Madera  del  Presidio/' 

Q,  165,  You  state,  that  the  ranches,  when  petitioned  foi% 
generally  took  their  names  from  some  use,  legend  or  cir- 
cumstance connected  therewith,  when  not  named  afiersome 
saint ;  do  you  not  suppose  that  this  particular  rancho  derived 
its  name  from  the  jmrticular  use  to  which  it  was  appropriated, 
or  to  its  contiguity  to  lands  where  timber-cutting  was  car- 
ried on  ?  A,  I  have  in  my  answer  to  a  former  question 
stated  that  I  presumed  that  the  rancho  in  question  derived 
its  name  from  the  place  at  which  timber  was  cut  for  the  use 
of  the  Presidio,  the  Mission  Dolores  and  other  places, 

Q,  166,  Assuming  to  be  true,  as  has  been  stated  in 
evidence  in  this  case,  that  alt  the  land  represented  on  the 
official  plat,  from  Raccoon  Straits  to  its  western  boundary 
was  called  Tiburon;  and  assuming  to  be  true,  that  part  of 
s:iid-trac^  was  called  "Corte  de  Madera,"  in  this  pe:ition, 
would  the  entire  tract  called  Tiburon  have  been  granted  by 
the  Mexican  Government,  or  only  the  particular  i>lace called 
Corte  de  Madera  ?  A.  It  would  depend  upon  the  descrip- 
tive calls  of  the  title  papers, 

Q.  167.  Are  you  acquainted  with  a  place  on  the  point  of 
land  projecting  into  the  Bay  of  San  Francisco,  and  laying  to 
the  south  and  east  of  a  straight  line  drawn  from  California 
City  Point,  as  represented  on  the  otiicial  map,  to  post  No.  272 
thereon,  and  called,  or  named  on  the  diagram  attached  to 
Ransom's  tield  notes  "  Mount  Tiburon  f  A,  I  do  not  now 
remember  the  location  of  said  point,  I  heard  of  such  a  place, 
and  may  have  seen  it,  but  I  caunot  give  its  exact  locality. 

Q.  168.     Assuming  that  there  is  on   said  point  on  the 


55 

ground  such  a  place  as  Mount  Tiburon,  and  that  the  top 
thereof,  as  repi'esented  on  the  Ransom  diagnnfi,  is  correctly 
located,  and  that  its  position  on  said  diagram  is  identical 
with  the  plafe  marked  Loma  Alta,  as  deliniated  on  di- 
sofio  in  Exhibit  "X.  Y.  Z.;"  and  supposing  that  the  me^^s- 
urers,  when  terminating  the  measurement  of  the  second 
juridical  call,  terminated  the  same  at  the  extremity  of  Mount 
Tiburon,  would  or  would  not  such  fact  be  expressed  in  the 
use  of  the  words  "hasta  la  punta  del  Tiburon?"  A.  I 
think  not. 

Q.  169.  If  the  diseno  in  this  case  had  not  been  found 
with  the  papers  in  the  case,  please  state  whether  said  diseno 
bears  any  internal  evidence  of  its  pertaining  to  this  case 
more  than  to  any  other  case  ?  A.  It  applies  as  well,  or  bet- 
ter to  the  Kancho  of  Saucelito  than  it  does  to  this  case  ;  but 
it  is  manifest  j^^i^  se  that  it  is  a  representation  of  one  of  the^e 
ranch  OS,  or  both,  as  it  is. 

Q.  170.  Is  it  not  also  a  fair  representation  of  the  head- 
lands at  the  entrance  of  the  Harbor  of  San  Francisco,  and 
certain  points  and  islands  in  the  bay  of  same  ?     A.  It  is. 

Q.  171.  To  this  extent,  might  it  not  be  regarded  as  a 
rough  nautical  chart,  especially  taken  in  connection  with  the 
figures  thereon  representing  fathoms  ?  A.  I  think  not,  be- 
cause I  find  on  the  diagram  the  words  "tereno  que  solic^ta 
Don  Juan  Read  al  otro  lado  del  Pto.  de  San  Francesco." 

Q.  172.  Did  you  ever  visit  this  rancho  in  any  official 
position,  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States?  A.  I 
did  not. 

Q.  173.  Have  you  any  knowledge  or  information  as  to 
who  made  or  compiled  the  body  of  the  diserio  in  this  case? 
A.  I  have  no  positive  knowledge  ;  nothing  more  than  a 
conjecture. 

Q.  174.  I  call  your  attention  to  question  94  of  your  direct 
answer  thereto;  please  state  whether  the  diseno,  which  pur- 
ports to  be  the  diseno  in  this  case,  or  had  you  reference  to 
the  diseno  in  some  other  case?  A.  I  referred  to  the  diseno 
at  the  Pueblo  of  San  Rafael  and  the  diseno  in  the  Saucelito, 
and  not  to  the  diseno  in  this  case. 

Q.  175.  You  state,  in  answer  to  question  109,  that  you 
visited  this  rancho  with  Jose  de  la  Cruz  Sanchez;  is  said 
mau  now  living  ?     A.  I  understand  that  he  is. 

Q.  176.  Was  he  related  to  John  Read,  or  to  his  family, 
in  any  manner?  A.  I  think  he  was  the  brother  of  Mrs. 
Read,  widow  of  John  Read. 

Q.  177.  Do  you  know  if  he  has  any  claim  or  any  interest 
in.  any  part  of  this  rancho  ?     A.  I  do  not  know. 


56 

Mullen  &  Hyde  move  that  all  the  questions  and  answers 
on  page  125,  from  question  108  to  question  112,  be  striekeii 
out,  as  incompetent. 

Question  by  Mr.  Shanklin  : 

Q.  178.  From  your  knowledge  of  juridical  measurements, 
set  forth  in  thevarious  papers  in  this  office  in  relation  to  the 
measurements  of  lands,  have  you  found  that  the  direct  line 
of  measurement  between  any  two  points,  such  as  in  theEead 
grant,  from  the  "Solar"  to  the  "Holon,"  and  from  the 
Holon  to  "  La  punta  del  Tiburon,'^  is  used  to  designate  the 
boundary  line  of  the  rancho,  or  that  the  measurement  was 
niL'rely  intended  to  mark  the  extremities? 

Mr.  Howard,  for  the  United  States,  requests  counsel  to 
state  if  the  witness  is  being  examined  as  an  expert. 

Counsel  answers  that  this  witness  has  been  called  on  be- 
half of  the  Read  heirs,  on  account  of  his  acquaintance  with 
the  records  of  the  office  and  his  acquaintance  with  the  Span- 
ish language,  and  he  has  been  questioned  in  relation  to  the 
juridical  measurement  of  the  Read  Rancho,  in  direct  ex- 
amination; and  for  the  purpose  of  cross-examination  I  have 
asked  this  question,  to  test  his  knowledge  in  construingjuri- 
dical  measument,  as  customarily  made  by  the  Spaniards, 
and  as  containino^  the  intention  of  such  measurements. 

A.  The  manner  in  which  juridical  surveys  were  to  be 
made  under  the  Spanish  laws,  and  how  tlie  records  of  such 
surveys  were  to  be  made,  is  laid  down  and  fully  explained 
in  a  work  entitled  "  Medidas  de  Terras  y  Aqaas^^'  compiled 
by  one  Gal  van. 

The  instructions  given  in  this  work  for  making  a  survey 
of  a  rancho  or  tract  of  land  are :  To  take  some  interior  spot 
as  an  initial  point,  from  which  lines  were  run  to  the  four 
cardinal  points,  the  distance  required,  at  the  termini  of  which 
lines  land  marks  were  placed;  this  having  been  done,  the 
exterior  boundaries  were  to  be  run,  making  a  square  or  ob- 
long, or  such  other  figure  as  the  topography  of  the  country 
might  require. 

In  making  juridical  measurements  of  lands  in  California, 
but  little  regard  appears  to  have  been  given  to  the  rules  laid 
down  by  Gal  van,  save  in  the  manner  of  making  up  the 
records  of  such  measurements.  In  fact,  the  measurements 
of  lands  in  this  country,  as  shown  by  the  field  notes  of  the 
same,  have  been  made  in  almost  any  manner — sometimes, 
by  measuring  a  line  for  the  length,  and  another  for  the 
width  of  the  tract,  by  which  an   estimation  at  the  area  was 


57 

made ;  sometimes,  two  lines  were  measured,  ona  on  each 
side.  Always  the  measiiiements  were  carelessly  made,  and 
hence  incorrectly;  so  that  as  to  course  and  distance,  nothing 
can  be  more  uncertain  than  the  courses  and  distances  given 
in  the  field  notes  of  juridical  surveys,  as  executed  in  Cali- 
ibrnia,  during  the  time  of  the  Mexican  Government;  so 
that  it  is  impossible  to  deduce  any  certain  rule  or  custom, 
as  practiced  by  the  Mexicans,  in  giving  juridical  possession 
of  ranclios  in  California.  In  making  these  measurements, 
the  line  of  measurement  was  not  always  run  upon  the  boun- 
dary of  the  rancho,  or  designed  to  represent  the  same. 

Q.  1T8.  Please  to  look'at  the  diseno  of  the  Pueblo  of 
San  Ralael,  found  in  Vol.  10  of  Missions,  page  365,  which 
Las  already  been  shown  you  in  your  direct  examination,  and 
state  whether  or  not  the  ranchos  Saucelito  and  Corte  de  Ma- 
dera del  Presidio  are  represented  thereon  ;  and  if  so,  state 
their  relation  to  each  other,  and  to  the  Pueblo  of  San  Ea- 
fael.  as  shown  by  said  map.  A.  The  places  Saucelito  and 
Tiburon  are  shown  on  said  map  ;athey  appear  in  the  form  of 
two  peninsulas,  running  out  into  the  bay,  joined  together  on 
the  northwest — the  peninsulas  being  separated  by  an  ensen- 
ada,  or  small  bay,  and  being  separated  from  each  other  on 
the  main  land  by  the  representation  of  a  creek;  and  both 
being  bounded  on  the  northwest  by  the  line  of  the  pueblo 
hinds  of  San  Rafael. 

Q.  179.  Please  to  examine  the  diseno  of  the  Rancho  ot 
Saucelito,  as  filed  in  case  No.  101,  a  copy  of  which  is  filed 
as  an  exhibit  in  this  case  and  marked  and  state 

whether  the  same  two  ranchos  are  represented  thereon; 
and  if  so,  describe  their  situation  and  relation  to  each  other 
as  represented  therein.  A.  They  are  represented  on  said 
diseiio,  their  relations  to  each  other  being  similar  as  those 
described  in  answer  to  last  question. 

Question  objected  to  by  J.  B.  Howard,  as  irrelevant  and 
incompetent :  1st.  Because  said  diseno  does  not  form  part 
of  the  Mexican  archives.  2d.  Because  it  does  not  appear 
from  the  archives  that  there  is,  or  ever  has  been,  any  grant 
represented  as  lying  west  of  the  Read  Rancho.  3d.  Be- 
cause it  is  shown  by  the  archives  that  no  such  grant  as  that 
referred  to,  namely,  case  104,  ever  existed;  even  the  title 
papers  relative  thereto,  as  in  espediente  No.  Ill,  are  shown 
to  be  antedated,  forged  and  fraudulent  in  all  respects. 

Q.  180.  The  disefio  filed  with  the  petition  of  John  Read 
for  a  grant  of  land,  as  referred  to  in  his  second  petition,  and 
a  copy  of  which  is  filed  in  this  case  as  exhibit        ,  and 


5S   • 

question  asked,  please  look  at  said  diseno  and  state  wlietber, 
ill  your  oj)inion,  there  are  any  iinos  drawn  thereoii  which 
did  not  form  any  part  of  the  ori<;inal  diseno;  if  so,  desig- 
nate them,  so  that  we  can  undei^staiid  their  lociition.  A.  I 
think  that  all  of  the  straight  lines  shown  on  the  diseno  re- 
ferred to  was  place  I  thereon  after  the  making  of  the  other 
portions  of  the  map;  how  long  afterwards  I  cannot  pretend 
to  say.  The  straiglit  lines,  intended  to  mark  that  portion 
of  the  Read  Ranclio  not  bounded  by  the  waters  of  the  bay, 
are  made  witli  different  ink  fi*om  the  lines  designed  to  show 
the  boundaries  of  the  Saucelito  Rancho;  these  lines  are  in 
different  ink  from  that  used  in  making  the  map.  I  think 
that  the  lines  in  pale  ink,  representing  the  boundaries  of 
the  Read  Ranclio,  were  made  subsequently  to  the  lines  rep- 
resenting the  boundary  of  the  Saucelito  Rancho. 


Monday,  Nov.  loth,  1875, 

All  present. 

S.  R.  Throckmorton,  a  party  to  this  case,  moves  to  ex- 
punge from  the  record  and  strike  out  so  much  of  the 
objection  to  question  No.  179  as  refers  to  j^aper  No.  104 
named  in  said  objection  to  espcdiente  No.  Ill  referred  to 
in  said  objection,  for  the  reasons  that  said  assertions  therein 
made,  referring^ to  said  papers  so  numhered,  are  slanderous, 
libelous,  and  maliciously  false  and  untrue,  and  have  no 
foundation  in  truth,  for  such  objection  or  justification  there- 
for, the  said  cases  therein  referred  to  having  been  decided 
by  all  the  courts  ot  the  country  to  be  good  and  valid. 

J.  B.  Howard,  for  the  U.  S.  and  pre-emption  claimants, 
hereby  accepts  the  issue  tendered  by  S.  R.  Throckmortoi>, 
and  will  undertake  to  prove  that  the  case  referred  to,  as 
case  No.  10-1  of  the  late  U.  S.  Land  Commission,  and  espe- 
diente  No.  Ill,  for  the  Rancho  of  Saucelito,  alleged  to  have 
been  granted  to  the  late  Wm.  A.  Richardson,  and  now 
claimed  by  S.  R.  Throckmorton  el  als. ;  and  all  the  title 
papers  relative  thereto,  are  fraudulent,  ante-dated,  forged  or 
counterfeit;  that  the  said  exhibit,  purporting  to  be  a  plat 
or  diseno  of  said  rancho,  is  part  of  said  case  No.  104  ;  that 
no  juridical  possession  was  ever  given  to  any  person  or 
persons  by  the  Mexican  Government  ;  that  the  possession 
claimed  was  given  of  a  small  portion  only  of  the  lands 
embraced  in  said  exhibit,  without  authority  of  law,  and  by 
a  person,  Salvador  Vallejo,  w^hose  authority  to  give  juridical 
possession  or  exercise  the  functions  of  a  justice  of  the  peace 
under  the  laws  of  Mexico  was  expressly  denied  by  the  Sup- 


59 

rorae  Court,  Fiscal,  and  Governor  of  California  ;  that  the 
grant  on  which  said  title  is  claimed  is  filed  in  said  case  ]^o. 
104;  that  it  is  dated  February  11,  A.  D.  1838,  signed  by 
Juan  B.  Alvarado,  Governor,  and  Francisco  Arce,  as  Ist 
Official  to  the  Secretary  of  State  ;  that  at  the  date  of  said 
grant  the  said  Alvarado  was  not  Governor,  and  Francisco 
Arce  was  not  1st  Official  ;  and  other  reasons  of  equal  force, 
showing  the  invalidity  of  said  exhibit;  wherefore  said 
exhibit  being  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  in  the 
ascertainment  of  the  juridical  possession  of  the  Rancho  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio. 

The  United  States  objects  to  the  introduction  of  a  forged 
or  fraudulent  paper  for  the  purpose  of  determining  a  ques- 
tion of  boundary,  or  any  other  question  pertaining  to  the 
issues  of  this  cause,  under  the  law  and  the  decision  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior,  of  January  6,  1872,  by  which  the 
rancho  was  ordered  to  be  resurveyed. 

Silas  Lent  being  called  as  a  witness  by  Messrs.  Mullen  & 
Ilvde,  and  being  first  duly  sworn,  deposes  and  says  :  My 
name  is  Silas  Lent;  I  reside  at  2105  Mason  St.,  San  Fran- 
cisco.    My  occupation  is  capitalist. 

Q.  1.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  land  in  Marin 
County,  California,  claimed  as  the  liead  Rancho,  and  called 
the  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ?     A.  I  am. 

Q.  2.  Please  state  the  date  when  you  first  became 
acquainted  with  said  lands,  and  the  circumstances  under 
which  you  became  acquainted  with  the  same  ?  A.  In 
1856  I  first  became  acquainted  with  it.  Goodall,  Hinckley 
&  Curtis  and  myself,  located  320  acres  on  the  peninsula, 
bounded  on  Raccoon  Straits,  as  Government  land.  We  had 
the  title  searched  by  Mr.  Wilson.     He  said 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Brooks,  that  the  matter  of  this 
answer  is  irrelevant  and  incompetent. 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Sharp  on  the  same  ground. 

lie  said  the  claim  was  Limentour's.  I  inquired  of 
Capt.  Richardson  [Capt.  Wm.  Richardson],  of  the  Saucelito 
Rancho,  if  he  knew  where  the  southern  boundary  of  the 
Read  Rancho  was  situated.  He  pointed  out  a  large  bunch 
of  rocks,  or  a  rock  on  a  flat,  a  short  distance  above  Ker- 
shaw Causeway.  He  Uved  on  the  island.  The  pile  of  roCk 
lay  to  the  north  or  northeast  of  this  causewaj^  and  that 
Richardson  said  that  he  was  with  the  surveyors  at  the  time 
it  was  surveyed,  and  that  he  helped  pile  a  pile  of  stones 
onto  this  rock  of  which  I  have  spoken  as  a  boundary, 
as  the  southern  boundary.     That  he  said  to  Read  at  the 


60 

time,  "Why  did  not  you  apply  fov  the  whole  of  the  land, 
meaning  the  point.  Kead  replied  :  I  was  atVaid  to  ask 
for  too  much,  for  fear  I  would  not  get  any. 

Mr.  Brooks  moves  to  strike  out  the  whole  of  the  answer 
after  the  words  "  Goat  Island,"  in  his  answer  ]^o.  2,  as 
irrelevant  and  incompetent. 

Mr.  Sharp  makes  the  same  motion. 

Q.  3.  Please  state  whether  thereafter  you  went  upon 
said  land  at  said  point  spoken  of  by  you  as  Government 
land,  and  if  so,  what  did  you  do  thereon?,  A.  I  went 
there  under  the  impression  that  it  was  Government  land, 
built  a  house,  and  lived  there  between  three  and  four 
years,  until  driven  off  by  the  Reads. 

Q.  4.  Have  you  returned  to  said  lands  to  reside  there 
since  you  were  driven  ott  by  said  Reads  ?     A.  1  have  not. 

Q.  5.  Was  the  fact  that  you  were  so  driven  off  by  the 
Reads,  the  only  reason  why  you  left  said  land  ?     A.  It  was. 

Q.  6.  You  state  that  Capt.  Richardson,  of  the  Saucelito 
Rancho,  said  thathe  was  with  the  surveyors  at  the  time  said 
southern  boundary  of  the  Read  Rancho  was  surveyed. 
What  surveyors  have  you  reference  to?  A.  The  surveyors 
under  the  Mexican  Government. 

Q.  7.  What  did  you  understand  said  pile  of  stones  to  in- 
dicate ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Brooks,  as  irrelevant  and  incompetent. 
Same  objection  by  Mr.  Sharp. 

A.  Tlie  southern  boundary  of  the  Read  Rancho. 

Q.  8.  Did  you  ever  see  upon  said  peninsula,  ciwd  at  the 
place  and  po.-^ition  by  you  described,  any  pile  of  rock?  A.  I 
never  went  upon  the  top  of  said  rocks  to  see  if  there  was  a 
pile  of  rocks  there;  I  have  been  all  around  it,  shooting  quail. 

Q.  9.  Was  there  any  high  or  prominent  land  mark  near 
to  the  place  pointed  out  to  you  by  said  Richardson?  A.  No, 
except  as  I  have  already  stated. 

Q.  10.  Describe,  as  well  as  you  can,  as  near  as  you  can, 
the  land  mark  you  mention.  A.  It  is  some  length  of  time 
since  I  saw  it.  It  is  a  bunch  of  rocks,  I  should  judge  to  be 
from  15  to  25  feet  in  height,  somewhat  in  a  circular  form, 
and  had  around  the  top  some  stunted  bay  laurel. 

Q.  11.  How  was  said  land  mark  or  pile  of  rock  situated 
as  to  distance  with  reference  to  water  on  either  side  of  the 
peninsula?  A.  I  should  judge  it  to  be  from  100  to  300  yards 
from  the  shore  of  the  bay  called  Saucelito. 

Q.  12.  Did  said  pile  of  rocks  appear  as  if  piled  there  by 
band,  or  artificially,  or  did  the  same  bear  the  appearance  of 


61 

"being  a  natural  pile  of  rocks.  A.  Tliey  were  a  natural  pile 
of  rocks,  with  a  pile  of  rocks  placed  upon  the  top,  as  I  was 
informed  by  Richardson, 

Objeced*  to  by  Mr.  Brooks  as  incompetent  hearsay,  and 
inadniissibk\ 

Same  olyection  by  Mr.  Sharp. 

Q.  13.  Was  said  place  ^nd  pile  of  rocks  as  prominent  as 
5my  other  land  mark  in  that  vicinity?  A.  More  prominent, 
I  should  judge,  it  being  peculiar  in  its  shape  and  location. 

Q.  14.'  Who  was  Kershaw  ?  A.  He  was  a  gentleman  that 
lived  on  the  island — '*  Kershaw  Island." 

Q.  15.  Was  he  related  to  the  Reads?  A.  Not  to  my 
knowiedge, 

Q.  16.^  Do  you  know  if  he  occupied  for  himself  or  for 
8iii(l  Reads  ?     A,  He  pretended  to  own  it. 

Q,  17.  Do  you  know  by  what  name  this  island  was  called 
when  you  were  there  ?  A.  No,  I  do  not.  Sometimes  it  was 
I'alled  Tiburon.  Kershaw's  Island  was  sonietimes  called  Ti- 
buron. 

Q.  18.  Have  you  known  the  island  to  be  called  Tiburori 
as  often  as  the  point  itself?     A.  I  could  not  say. 

Cross-examination  by  Sharp. 

Q.  1,  When  did  yon  have  the  conversation  with  Capt. 
Richardson?     A.  In  the  early  part  of  1856. 

Q.  2.  State  where,  and  who  was  present.  A.  A  num- 
ber was  present.  It  was  on  the  Saucelito  tug  and  water 
boat ;  I  was  engineer  at  that  time  ;  I  cannot  name  a  single 
person  who  was  present  at  that  time. 

Q.  3.  Where  was  the  boat  when  this  occurred  ?  A. 
She  was  crossijig  from  Saucelito;  she  was  about  a  J  of  a 
mile  from  the  Saucelito  side. 

Q.  4.  Had  you  any  acquaintance  with  that  section  of 
country  prior  to  1856  ?  A.  No  ;  only  I  had  been  shooting 
over  there. 

Q.  5.  When  was  it  the  Reads  drove  you  off?  A,  In 
1860,  I  think. 

Q.  6.  Was  you  a  defendant  in  the  suit  in  U.  S.  District 
Court  ?     A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  7.  How  was  it  ?  By  suit  ?  A.  No ;  Read  came 
there  and  required  me  to  leave  or  pay  rent  ? 

OrosS' Examination  by  Mr.  Brooks. 
Q.  1.     When  did  you  first  go  upon  that  land?     A.  In 


62 

1856,  to  settle.     Ab^ut  a  year  before  I  was  there  sliootingr 

Q.  2.  How  was  it  occupied  at  that  time  ?  A.  There 
was  no  oie  hving  there  at  that  time ;  there  was  no  house. 

Q.  3.  Didn't  the  cattle  of  Reed  occupy  it  ?  A,  Not 
that  I  knew  of. 

Q.  4.  Was  there  anything  to  prevent  the  cattle  of  Reed 
ranging  on  that  land  as  well  as  on  the  adjoining  land  ?  A, 
There  was  nothing. 

Q.  5.  Froin  the  Point  of  Tibnron  we&t  to  the  moun- 
tain was  there  anything  in  the  way  of  a  building  or  a  fence 
when  you  first  saw  the  land  ?  A.  I  never  knew  where  the 
Point  TiburonVas.  Some  called  it  Kershaw's  Island;  some 
called  the  point  at  the  east  entrance  of  the  strait,  and  some 
called  the  whole  point  of  land  as  the  Point  Tiburon. 

Q.  6.  Assuming  the  [>oint  to  be  the  front  on  Raccoon 
Straits,  was  there  any  fence  or  obstruction  to  the  range  of 
cattle  from  said  strait-j  to  the  western  limit  of  that  promon- 
tory or  that  tongue  of  land  ?     A.    None,  to  my  knowledge, 

Q.  7.  What  was  the  exact  point  that  you  located  upon  ? 
A.  I  built  a  house  about  the  place  on  the  official  map  (here 
shown  witness)  marked  "  t  "  in  the  word  Point,  between  tlie 
figures  in  red  ink,  sections  5  and  6,  T.  1,  S,  R.  5  W.;  I  was 
there  w^ien  the  Mathewson  survey  was  made. 

Q.  8.  Then  am  I  to  understand  you  that  from  1855  to 
1860  you  were  in  the  habit  of  frequently  passing  over  the 
land  shown  in  the  official  map  from  the  place  marked  on 
the  map  Tiburon,  to  the  neck  marked  "  T.  1,  N.  R.  6  W,," 
in  red  ink  ?  A.  Not  from  '55,  bat  from  '56  to  '60  I  had 
frequently  passed  over  it;  prior  to  that  I  had  been  on  the 
point;  I  was  in  the  habit  of  hunting  over  the  ground  from 
1856  to  up  to  1860.  I  had  frequently  been  over  the  ground. 
Q.  9.  Then  I  understand  you  to  say  that  you  hive  no 
recollection  of  seeing  any  fence  crossing  that  land  during 
those  years.  A.  I  ivever  did,  but  referring  to  the  causeway, 
I  saw  a  fence  there,  but  not  on  the  main  land. 

Q.  10.  At  the  time  you  spoke  to  Richardson  and  had  the 
conversation  with  Richardson,  had  it  became  generally 
known  that  theLimentour  chains  were  fraudulent  and  fabri- 
cated ?  A.  I  could  not  say  whether  it  was  generally  known 
or  not. 

Q.  11.  Was  it  known  to  you  ?  A.  We  supposed  it  to 
be  a  fraudulant  claims  and  paid  no  attention  to  it  whatever, 
as  it  included  "Angel  Island,"  "  Alcatraz,"  "Farallones," 
"  Yerba  Buena  Islands,"  and  we  thought  that  such  a  claim 
was  preposterous. 


63 

Q.  12.  What  I  desired  to  know  was  whether  the  fraud- 
nleiit  character  of  tliesQ  claims  had  at  that  time  been  shown 
in  Court?     A.     I  think  that  it  was  after. 

Q.  13.  Have  you  not  placed  your  house  too  far  back  from 
the  water  ?  A.  It  was  about  100  to  150  yards  from  the  water. 
Its  position  is  shown  on  the  plat  of  the  Mathewson's  survey 
of  this  rancho,  and  I  think  it  is  correct.  It  is  marked  S. 
Lent's  house. 

Re'Dlrect   Examination, 

Muller  &  Hyde  here  requests  the  U.  S.  Survey  or- General 
to  produce  for  the  purposes  of  use  in' this  case,  the  diagram 
inclosed  with  and  that  accompanied  the  communication  of 
Commisioiier  of  the  General  tand  Office,  of  February  5th, 
1872,  addressed  to  this  office,  and  upon  which  diagram  were 
marked  the  dotted  blue  lines,  representing  approximately 
the  eastern  boundary  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Pre- 
sidio, according  to  the  2d  hypothesis  set  forth  in  said  com- 
munication, and  which  dotted  blue  lines  extended  from  near 
meander  course  ^o.  105  to  near  meander  course  E'o.  24,  as 
said  courses  are  marked  on  the  Mathewson's  survey  of  1858, 
as  set  forth  in  said  commifnication. 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Brocks,  that  this  is  an  illegitimate  and 
irresponsible  method  of  putting  assertions  on  the  record,  un- 
supported by  any  testimony  and  foreign  to  the  issues  now  un- 
der examination. 

Sol.  A.  Sharp  joins  in  said  objection. 

Q.  In  the  absence  of  the  map  which  I  have  referred  to, 
please  look  at  the  Mathewson's  survey,  now  before  you,  and 
state  how  a  line  drawn  from  the  end  of  course  ]S"o.  105  to 
the  end  of  course  Xo.  24,  would  correspond  as  to  position  or 
location  on  the  ground  with  the  position  or  tbat  location  of 
the  land  mark  or  pile  of  rocks  mentioned  by  you  in  your? 
A.  It  would  not  correspond  at  all.  That  would  be  too  far 
north  and  west ;  that  is,  from  the  pile  of  rocks  of  which  I  have 
made  reference  to. 

Q.  Indicate  on  said  Mathewson  plot  the  position  of  said 
pile  of  rocks,  as  near  as  you  can.  A.  Between  course  98 
and  99  on  this  map  there  is  an  arroyo  and  a  buckeye  tree 
standing.  I  should  judge  that  pile  of  rocks  to  be  located 
between  No.  98  and  99  stations  on  said  map,  and  from  100 
to  300  yards  from  the  shore. 

Q.  How  long  after  3^our  first  entry  upon  the  lands  of  Point 
Tiburon  was  it  before  you  were  disturbed  by  the  Read  fam- 
ily ?  A.  After  the  Read  family  came  into  possession^  and 
after  the  Mathewson  survey. 


64 

Q.  Then  yon  were  on  these  lands  tliree  (3)  years  before 
you  were  disturbed  by  the  Read  heirs  ?  A.  Yes,  about 
that  time. 

Q.  Were  you  there  before  or  after  the  date  of  the  failure 
of  the  Limentour  claim  was  rejected  ?     A.  I  don't  know. 

Q.  Please  give  the  date  when  you  left  these  lands  in  con- 
sequence of  the  claim  thereto  set  up  by  the  Read  family. 
A.  In  T^ovember,  1860. 

Q.  How  long  prior  to  said  date  did  the  Read  family  set 
up  claim  to  possession  to  the  land  which  you  occupied  ?  A. 
Several  months  prior  to  that. 

Q.  Was  it  before  or  after  the  Mathewson  survey  ?  A. 
It  was  after  the  date  of  the  Mathewson  survey. 

Cross-examined, 

Q.  Could  you  from  the  tugboat  a  quarter  of  a  mile  out 
from  Saucelito  see  the  pile  of  rocks  you  liave  spoken  of? 
A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  think  I  could  see  it,  and  know  I  did  see  it 
at  that  time. 

Q.  What  time  did  you,  during  1856,  was  it  you  went  to 
reside  at  Tiburon  Point  ?     A.  About  September. 

Q.  How  long  previous  was  it  you  had  the  talk  with  Rich- 
ardson ?     A.  I  think  it  was  about  April  or  May. 

Q.  Could  it  have  been  as  early  as  March  ?  A.  I  think 
not,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  prior  to  his  death  ?     A.  I  could  not  sav. 

SILAS  LENT. 


Tuesday,  November  16th,  1875. 

All  present. 

Thomas  B.  Valentine  being  called  as  a  witness  by  the 
U.  S.,  being  first  duly  sworn,  deposes  and  says  :  My  name 
is  T.  B.  Valentine ;  my  age,  45  years ;  residence,  San 
Francisco  ;  occupation,  speculator. 

Q.  1.  Are  you  interested  in  the  matter  now  in  contro- 
versy ;  if  so,  w^hat  is  the  nature  and  extent  of  your  in- 
terest ?  A.  I  am.  I  claim  an  interest  in  all  the  land 
within  the  juridical  possession  given  to  the  late  Juan  Read 
in  November,  1835,  under  the  grant  to  him  of  October  2d, 
1834,  situated  outside  of  the  survey  made  by  R.  C.  Mathew- 
son, October,  a.  d.  1858.  Said  Mathewson  was  a  Deputy 
TJ.  S.  Surveyor. 

Q.  2.  Please  examine  the  plat  of  the  survey  of  the 
Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  as  made  by  R.  C. 
Mathewson,  Deputy  U.  S.  Surveyor,  in  October,  1858,  and 


65 

state  whether  all  the  lands  you  claim  are  represented  on 
said  map  or  plot ;  and  if  not,  state  what  other  lands,  if  any, 
you  claim. 

Objected  to  by  J.  W.  Shanklin,  that  by  his  answer  this 
witness  cannot  bind  other  claimants  from  the  same  source 
<>f  title  whose  claims  are  outside  of  the  Mathewson  survey. 
Also  by  a  statement  of  what  he  now  claims  he  cannot  off 
other  claimants  outside  of  the  Mathewson  survey  who  have 
derived  title  from  himself 

Objection  concurred  in  by  Mr.  Brooks;  and  he  further 
objects  that  the  e  .tent  of  Mr.  Valentine's  claim  appears  by 
his  claim  and  intervention  filed  in  the  papers  in  this  pro- 
iieodino^,  and  the  extent  of  his  rights  in  the  land  is  a  matter 
of  law  depending  upon  the  construction  cf  documents  in 
evidence. 

Objected  to  by  Messrs.  Mullen  &  Hyde,  as  being  incom- 
petent, 

A.  They  are  not 

Q.  3.  Are  any  of  the  lands  you  claim  represented  on 
said  plat?  A.  Yes;  some  of  them  are.  I  point  out  Pe- 
ninsula Island,  another  small  peninsula,  called  Island,  on 
said  map  between  Peninsula  Island  and  the  main  land. 
Another  peninsula  called  Idand  on  said  map  lying  opposite 
post  C.  M.  P.  No.  145,  on  said  map.  Also  all  the  salt 
marsh  lying  adjacent  to  the  main  land  on  the  north,  south, 
and  west  of  the  rancho,  and  east  of  the  estero,  spoken  of 
in  the  juridical  possession,  and  the  land  as  shown  on  said 
map  lying:  northwest  of  the  I^.W.  line  of  said  survey. 

Q.  4.  Please  examine  the  official  plat  of  said  rancho  as 
made  by  L.  Ransom  and  G.  F.  Allardt  and  state  what  land 
on  that  map  you  claim  within  the  survey  therein  repre- 
sented ?  A.  I  claim  all  the  following  peninsulas  w^ithin 
said  survey :  The  peninsula  opposite  Peninsula  Island, 
lying  between  it  and  the  main  land  ;  also  the  peninsula 
upon  which  is  marked  *' De  Silva's  Wharf     All. 

Q.  5.  Do  you  claim  any  other  lands  within  said  survey 
as  represented  on  said  plat?  A.  Yes;  I  claim  a  piece  of 
land  known  or  designated  as  the  "  Gardner  place,"  between 
titations  J^o.  603  and  l^o.  564. 

Q.  6.  Please  state  if  you  were  a  party  in  interest  claim- 
ing title  under  the  confirmees  pending  the  former  survey 
which  was  disapproved  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior, 
January  6,  1872,  upon  which  order  a  re-survey  of  the 
Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  was  ordered  to  be  made 
— I  mean  up  to,  and  prior  to,  January  6,  1872,  at  any  time  ? 


66 

Objected  to  as  immaterial  by  Messrs.  Mullen  &  Hyde. 

A.  I  was,  as  shown  by  my  deeds  on  file  in  this  catse. 

Q.  7.  Please  state  whether  yon  were,  at  any  time  prior 
to  January  6,  1872,  represented  in  person  or  by  counsel  in 
the  application  upon  which  said  >e-survey  was  ordered  at 
that  date  ?  A.  I  was  represented  in  person.  I  made  ap- 
plication in  person  for  the  re-survey,  and  also  by  counsel  as 
well. 

Q.  8.  State  who,  if  any  other  persons  or  interest  w^as 
represented  with  you  in  said  application. 

Objected  to  by  Cutter  on  the  ground  that  the  record  is 
best  evidence. 

A.  I  think  the  Read  heirs  were  making  said  application. 
The  record  shows  all  the  facts — that  is  my  impression  ;  I 
am  not  positive. 

Q.  9.  State  who  it  was  that  paid  or  defrayed  the  ex- 
penses of  the  re-survey  represented  on  the  official  plat  now 
before  you.  A.  The  Read  heirs,  myself,  and  Mr.  J.  B, 
Howard,  a  portion. 

Q.  10.  State  when  and  where,  and  to  whom,  said  pay- 
ments were  made,  so  far  as  you  know.  A.  The  first 
payment  of  $417  was  paid  into  the  office  of  the  U.  S.  Sur- 
veyor-General some  time  in  October  or  September,  A.  D. 
18*73,  by  the  Read  heirs  and  myself.  Subsequently,  it  was 
found  that  that  amount  was  not  sufficient  to  complete  the 
survey;  then  additional  sums  were  paid  by  the  Read  heirs, 
J.  B.  Howard,  and  myself 

Q.  11.  In  whose  behalf  did  J.  B.  Howard  represent  the 
payment  made  by  him  as  being  his  principal,  or  in  whose 
interest  was  the  payment  made  by  him,  as  represented  ? 

Objected  to  because  it  does  not  appear  that  Mr.  Howard 
made  any  payment  for  any  person  connected  with  the 
rancho — simply  that  he  made  a  payment. 

A.  In  behalf  of  Thos.  Luke  Riley,  who  was  represented 
to  me  to  be  a  pre-emption  claimant. 

Q.  12.  For  what  lands  ?  A.  For  lands  lying  west  of  the 
west  line  of  the  official  plat. 

Motion  now  made  by  J.  W.  Shanklin  to  strike  out  Ques- 
tions 11  and  12  and  the  answers  thereto,  because  they  show 
that  the  deposit  or  payment  made  by  Mr.  Howard  was  not 
made  in  behalf  of  parties  claiming  an  interest  in  the  Read 
rancho,  as  required  by  law,  prescribing  who  shall  make  pay- 
ments for  the  survey  of  Mexican  grants.  And  further,  be- 
cause they  have  developed  the  fact  that  the  money  was  not 
deposited,  as  required  by  law,  in  the  U.  S.  District  Court; 


67 

the  Surveyor-General  having  no  authority  to  receive  money 
for  such  survey. 

Q.  13.  Piease  state  who  made  the  payment  referred  to 
iu  hehalf  of  the  Read  heirs.  A.  Dr.  Benj.  Lyford,  the  hus- 
band of  one  of  the  daughters  of  the  late  Juan  Read,  grantee 
or  claimant  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio. 

Q.  14.  State  what  was  the  agreement,  the  terms  and 
conditions  exacted  by  Dr.  Benj.  Lyford  and  J.  B.  Howard 
as  a  condition  and  consideration  for  said  payment.  A.  It 
was  with  a  view  of  expediting  the  case.  It  was  to  be  the 
last  payment  to  be  made. 

Q.  15.  Was  it  not  understood  and  agreed  expressly  at 
the  time  that  the  survey  then  made  should  be  final  and  con- 
clusive on  all  parties  ?  A.  I  don't  recollect  that.  My  recol- 
lection was  that  we  would  not  pay  any  more  money  for  the 
survey. 

Q.  16.  Please  state  if  you  were  present  at  the  time  the 
late  Leander  Ransom,  Deputy  U.  S.  Surveyor,  went  upon  the 
ground  near  post  No.  C.  M.  181,  and  began  the  re-survey  of 
raid  rancho  ?  A.  I  was  present  when  a  preliminary  exam- 
ination for  the  survey  was  made  of  said  rancho  by  L.  Ran- 
som. Dr.  Benj.  Lyford,  Mr.  G.  F.  Allardt,  Deputy  Sur- 
veyor, S.  R.  Throckmorton,  Peter  Gardner  were  all  present. 
I  don't  recollect  the  others  present.  I  am  not  sure  that 
Allardt  was  there.  I  will  examine  my  memorandum.  I 
can  give  the  exact  date  of  this  from  my  memoranda. 

Q.  17.  Please  state  for  what  purpose  you  went  there. 
A.  We  went  there  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  a  starting  point 
for  the  re-surV'Cy. 

Q.  18.  Please  state  what  conclusion  was  arrived  at  by 
all  or  any  of  the  parties  present  as  to  the  initial  point  of  re- 
survey. 

Objected  to  by  Shanklin,  as  it  could  only  be  determined 
by  the  Deputy  tl.  S.  Surveyor,  and  by  him  made  a  matter 
ot*  record.  This  witness'  recollection  cannot  determine  the 
fact. 

A.  I  don't  think  that  there  was  any  definite  conclusion 
arrived  at. 

Q.  19.     Question  repeated.     A.  That  is  my  impression. 

Q.  20.  State,  as  nearly  as  you  can  recollect,  what  the 
suggestions  of  the  respective  parties  were  ? 

Objected  to  by  Shanklin  as  being  immaterial  and  irrele- 
vant, as  not  calling  for  the  best  testimony. 

A.  I  think  the  impression  that  I  had  was,  that  the  line 
was  fixed  or  determined  upon  in  the   ejectment  suits  of 


6S 

Bolton  vs.  Yan  Eeynegom  et  al,  in  the  U.  S.  Circuit  Court.. 

Objected  to  as  not  being  responsive  to  the  question. 

Q.  21.  Point  out  the  line  on  the  oiiicial  map  fixed  on  in 
the  ejectment  suit  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Shanklin  as  irrelev^ant,  immaterial^ 
and  because  the  U.  S.  Deputy-Surveyor  could  not  be  bound 
in  making  his  survey  of  the  grant,  by  any  such  proceeding 
referred  to,  and  because  the  witness  has  not  testified  that 
any  definite  line  was  agreed  upon,  pointed  out,  or  agreed 
upon  at  the  time  referred  to  ;  and  further,  because  it  is  not 
shown  that  the  records  in  the  case  sworn  to  were  in  the  pos- 
session of  the  parties  on  the  ground  when  the  preliminary 
examination  was  made,  or  that  an  examination  was  made  by 
them  of  the  papers  in  the  case  referred  to,  as  the  basis  of 
their  action.  And  further,  that  it  was  not  shown  who  the 
parties  were  at  the  time  making  the  suggestions,  or  that 
their  interests  were  sufiicient  to  bind  the  parties  in  this 
case. 

A.  I  could  not  do  it;  I  was  only  supposing  that  that  was 
the  line.  I  don't  know  that  there  was  any  line  fixed  in  the 
ejectment  suit.  I  suppose  that  the  starling  point  was  the 
point  fixed  by  Judge  Sawj^er;  I  myself  pointed  out  that. 

Mr.  Sharp  here  objects  to  all  the  testimony  of  this  wit- 
ness as  to  all  agreements  made  by  this  witness  with  J.  B. 
Howard  and  Dr.  Beuj.  Lyford,  and  as  to  all  the  testimony 
relating  to  any  payments  for  the  survey,  and  by  whom  made, 
and  also  to  all  of  the  testimony  as  to  what  he,  the  witness, 
claims  in  the  premises  in  controversy,  or  any  adjacent  there- 
to, as  being  incompetent,  irrelevant  and  immaterial,  and  as 
not  tending  to  prove  any  fact  in  this  issue,  and  move^to 
strike  the  same  out  on  said  ground. 

Cutter,  and  P.  Garden,  for  himself,  make  the  same  objec- 
tions and  motion  as  made  by  Sharp. 

Q.  22.  "  (Question  No.  3)  Are  any  of  the  lands  you  claim 
represented  on  said  plat?" — the  question  referring  to  the 
Mathewson  survey  of  1858,  and  the  land  referred  to  being 
the  4,460  21-100  acres  thereon  represented.  Please  read 
over  your  answer  to  your  question  ITo.  3,  and  say  if  it  is 
correct  ?  A.  I  was  under  the  impression  in  answering  the 
question,  I  suppose  it  referred  to  all  that  was  on  the  paper, 
and  not  that  which  was  on  the  surveyed  plat.  I  now  state 
that  I  claim  none  of  the  lands  within  the  survej-ed  plat  re- 
ferred to  ;  I  never  have  claimed  any  of  the  land  represented 
on  said  Mathewson  survey. 

The  plat  of  the  Mathewson  survey  is  here  offered  in  evi- 


69 

i^ence  bv  the  IT.  S.  Distnct  Attorney,  Walter  Van  Dyke, 
Esq,  Mr.  Gardner  objects  to  J.  B.  Howard  appear! no^  for 
the  U.  S.  The  phit  is  also  offered  in  evidence  by  J.  B. 
Howard,  attorney  for  the  U.  S,,  J.  J.  Cashing,  Barlow  and 
Riley.     Said  plat  is  marked  Exhibit  ^'  Mathewson." 

Q.  23.  Wlio  was  the  Bolton  referred  to  in  said  eject- 
ment suit  ? 

Objected  to  by  Gardner,  on  the  ground  that  said  suit  is 
now  pending  in  the  U.  S.  Court. 

A.  James  Clinton  Bolton.  He  sued  on  a  deed  for  certain 
lands  given  by  the  Read  heirs.  The  papers  will  show  the 
date.     It  was  about  1865  or  1866. 

Q,  24,  State  if  you  derived  title  to  any  portion  of  the 
land  yon  claim  from  said  Bolton.  A.  I  do,  as  appears  from 
my  deeds  on  file,  being  a  part  of  the  Raueho  Corte  Madera 
del  Piesidio. 

By  Cutter — Move  to  strike  out  that  portion  of  the  an- 
swer referring  to  his  title  and  its  derivation,  as  not  being 
the  best  evidence. 

Cv)unsel  says  the  question  was  only  asked  for  identihcatiou. 

Q.  25.  Please  state  who  is  the  Van  Reynegom,  defendant 
in  said  ejectment  suit,  and  what  relation  to  or  interest  in,  if 
iiny,  he  and  his  co-detend;mt  claimed  in  the  land  Corte  Ma- 
dera, represented  on  the  official  plat  before  you. 

Objected  to  by  Cutter,  as  not  a  proper  way  to  show  the 
fact,  anH  not  the  best  evidence. 

A,  They  claimed  possessory  right,  being  located  upon 
the  land. 

Witness,  with  the  official  map  before  him,  says:  Com- 
mencing at  post  C.  M.  180,  of  the  otHcial  survey,  running 
8ome  distance  west  of  the  west  boundary  of  the  rancho  as 
surveyed;  and  running  tlience  in  a  northerly  direction  to  the 
Holon  to  where  the  northerly  line  will  strike  the  Holon,  to 
the  section  line  between  sections  16  and  17,  T.  1,  K.  R.  6 
W. ;  thence  easterly,  along  the  shore  of  the  Bay  of  San 
Francisco,  as  far  as  the  salt  marsh  extends— running  outside 
of  the  plat  as  far  as  the  salt  marsh  extends,  at  post  No,  639 
of  said  survey  ;  thence  along  the  west  line  of  the  Mathew- 
fcon  8urv3y  to  the  point  of  beginning.  The  records  will 
show^ 

Motion  by  J.  "W.  Shanklin  to  strike  out  the  foregoing 
question  and  answer  as  immaterial  and  irrelevant  to  the 
questions  at  issue  in  this  case;  it  appearing  from  the  an- 
swer that  the  question  relates  to  a  possessory  claim  not  in- 
tended to  establish  the  boundaries  of  the  Read  rancho,  either 


10 

as  regards  the  exterior  boundaries  thereof  or  the  juridical 
measurement. 

Q.  26.  Please  state  wli ether  auy  of  the  parties  present 
at  the  time  of  the  preliminary  survey,  or  view  for  a  survey^ 
viz.,  Ransom,  Deputy  Surveyor,  Allardt,  Deputy  Surveyor^ 
8.  II.  Throckmorton,  Benj.  Lyford,  or  Gardner,  "were  party 
defendants  in  said  ejectment  suit ;  if  so,  name  him. 

Objected  to  by  Messrs.  Mullen  &  Hyde,  as  not  the  best 
evidence. 

A.  One  of  the  defendants,  Peter  Gardner,  was  present. 

Q.  27.  Please  state  what  was  the  result  and  decision  in 
said  ejectment  suit. 

'     Objected  to  by  Cutter  as  being  immaterial  to  questions  at 
issue  in  the  matter  now  on  hearmg. 

A.  I  think  the  record  the  best  evidence.  The  result  wa& 
judgment  for  the  plaintiff. 

Q.  28.  Was  it  to  the  extent  of  the  whole  land  claimed  ? 
A.  The  record  shows  the  iact. 

Q.  29.  Please  state  if  you  were  present  at  the  time  when 
G.  F.  Allardt,  Deputy  Surveyor,  made  the  survey  of  the 
west  line  of  said  plat  or  rancho  in  June,  1874;  if  so^  who 
was  present?  A.  I  was  not  present,  and  do  not -know  who 
was  present. 

Q.  30.  Do  you  know  that  said  survey  wa&  made  by  said 
Allardt  in  the  tield,  referring  to  the  survey  of  the  west  line 
as  represented  on  the  official  plat  ?  A.  I  do  not,  of  my  own 
knowledge. 

KOVEMBER  19th,  1875. 
Cross- Examination  of  R.  C.  Hopkins,  resumed. 

182.  Question  by  Mullen  &  Hyde.  You  have  testified 
in  this  case,  relative  to  various  and  numerous  claims  pre- 
sented to  the  Board  of  Land  Commissioners,  by  Jose  Y. 
Limentour,  please  state  whether  it  appears  from  the  archives 
that  said  Limentour  made  application  for  confirmation  be- 
fore said  Board,  to  or  for  any  lands  that  have  been  confirmed 
to  other  and  difi:erent  claimants— not  intending  that  this 
question  should  apply  to  the  rancho  of  the  Corte  de  Madera 
del  Presidio  or  Rancho  de  Tiburon  ?  A.  I  think  that  all 
the  claims  presented  by  Limentour  were  finally  rejected  by 
the  Courts,  and  so  far  as  1  now  remember  I  do  not  think 
that  the  lands  covered  by  the  claims  of  Limentour  were  sub- 
sequently conferred  to  other  parties. 

Questions  by  J.  B.  Howard. 


71 

Q.  183.  Please  examine  the  plat  or  diseno  filed  herein 
as  exhibited — purporting  to  be  a  copy  certified  to  by  Secre- 
tary of  State,  plat  of  the  Rancho  of  Sausalito,  Richardson's 
Claim  No.  104,  Land  Commission,  being  copy  the  plat  pre- 
sented by  B.  S.  Brooks  and  referred  to  bj  J.  W.  Shankhn, 
Esq.,  as  in  question  No.  ,  examine  also  the  certificate  of 
Jose  Y.  Fernandez  on  the  reverse  side  of  said  plat,  and  state 
1st,  whether  said  diseno  is  there  certified  to  be  an  exact 
copy  of  the  original  in  espedi.ente  (111)  in  the  archives;  and 
2dly,  if  so,  whether  said  certificate  is  correct. 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Shanklin;  1st,  because  when  said  doc- 
ument was  ofiered  in  this  case,  no  objection  thereto  was 
made  by  Mr.  Howard;  2d,  because  the  matter  expressed  in 
the  ^juestion  is  not  proper  examination  ;  no  questions  having 
been  asked  either  by  Mr.  Brooks,  in  connection  with  the 
presentation  of  said  exhibit,  or  by  Mr.  Shanklin  in  cross- 
examination,  relating  to  other,  matters  than  the  Corte  de 
Madera  del  Presidio. 

Mr.  Brooks  objects:  that  what  the  Secretary  certifies  will 
appear  by  the  certificate  itself,  and  whether  it  is  correct,  and 
if  so  in  what  respect,  will  appear  by  a  comparison  with  the 
original  and  a  consideration  of  the  use  for  which  it  was  in- 
tended. 

A.  1st.  The  copy  of  map  referred  to,  is  certified  by  Jose 
Z.  Fernandez,  acting  temporarily  as  Secretary  of  State,  to 
be  faithfully  drawn  from  its  original,  which  is  found  in  the 
respective  expediente.  2d.  The  copy  referred  to  is  not  an 
exact  or  facsimile  copy  of  the  original,  as  found  in  the  espe- 
diente  ;  but  it  is  undoubtedly  designed  to  represent  the  same 
tract  of  country. 

Q.  184.  State  whether  it  appears  from  said  respective 
espedientes  that  any  grant  or  concession  issued  for  the  lands 
represented  on  said  exhibit,  west  of  the  straight  line  drawa 
after  the  words  Corte  de  Madera  ? 

Mr.  Shanklin  moves  to  strike  out  foregoing  question  ;  first 
because  it  is  not  proper  cross-examination,  and  2d,  because 
the  expediente  referred  to  was  not  presented  in  the  case. 

Mr.  Brooks  adds,  that  it  is  not  primary  evidence;  that  it 
is  irrevelant  and  incompetent.  Surveyor-General  sustains 
motion  to  strike  out.  Mr.  Howard  excepts  to  ruling  of 
Surveyor-General. 

R.  C.  HOPKINS. 


72 

Monday,  November  22d,  1875. 
Aljl  present. 

William  H.  Davis  bein^  called  as  a  witness  by  B.  S. 
J3 rooks,  is  first  duly  sworn  and  says  :  My  name  is  William 
H.  Davis  ;  I  reside  in  Oakland,  Alameda  Co.,  Cal.;  occupa- 
tion, real  estate  and  money  broker  ;  I  am  53  years  old. 

Q.  1.  Did  jou  know  Juan  Read  in  his  lifetime  ;  if  so, 
when,  where  and  how  did  you  become  acquainted  with  him  ? 
A.  I  did  ;  I  first  knew  him  in  the  summer  of  1838,  in  Yerba 
Bnena,  now  called  San  Francisco  ;  I  was  clerk  and  book- 
keeper with  K.  Spear,  in  Yerba  Buena,  and  Mr.  John  Read 
traded  with  us;  Mr.  Spear  supplied  him. 

Q.  2.  Did  you  at  that  time  understand  and  speak  the 
Spanish  and  English  languatre?  A.  In  July,  1838,  I  only 
knew  a  little  Spanish  ;  the  English  was  my  mother  tongue  ; 
I  soon  learned  the  Spanish  language. 

Q.  3.  To  what  extent  did  you  speak  the  S|>anisli  lan- 
guage in  1838?  A.  I  understood  enough  to  hold  a  conver- 
sation readily. 

Q.  4.  Did  you,  after  that,  acquire  facility  in  the  use  of 
Spanish  lano^uage  ?     A.  I  did.     I  acquired  it  easily. 

Q.  5.  Were  your  ordinary  dealings  mostly  with  the 
Spanish  people?     A.  Yes;  mostly  with  native  Californians. 

Q.  6.  Do  you  know  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Pre- 
sidio ?  When  and  how  did  you  become  acquainted  with  it? 
A.  The  Reads'  rancho,  I  suppose  ;  yes,  I  know  Junn  Read's 
rancho  ;  my  first  visit  to  Read's  rancho  was  in  December, 
1838  ;  Mr.  John  Read  doing  business  with  Spear,  I  visit 
there  in  December  on  business. 

Q.  7  How  often  were  you  there  afterwards  ?  A.  my 
next  visit  to  Read's  rancho  was  in  the  spring  of  1839. 

Q.  8.  When  you  visited  the  rancho  in  1838  how  long 
did  you  remain  there?  A.  Staid  over  night;  about  24 
hours. 

Q.  9.  By  whom  was  it  occupied  ?  A.  By  John  Read 
and  his  family. 

Q.  10.  Where  did  you  stay  while  on  the  rancho.  A. 
At  Read's  house,  where  his  family  w^as. 

Q.  ll.  How  was  the  rancho  occupied  and  used?  A. 
Stock-raising — cattle  and  horses. 

Q.  12.  Did  you  go  over  the  rancho  in  company  with 
Read  ?     A.  In  the  spring  of  1838  I  did  not. 

Q.  13.  Did  he  point  out  the  boundaries  of  his  rancho  to 
you  ?     A.  In  the  spring  of  1839  Mr.  Spear  was  with  me  at 


73 

the  rancho  of  Juan  Reed ;  Le  took  us  over  a  part  of  his 
rancho;  Read  furnished  horses,  and  we  rode  over  part  of 
his  rancho. 

Q.  14.  Did  he  at  that  time  point  out  to  you  tlie  bounda- 
ries of  this  rancho?  A.  Our  ride  was  from  his  house  to- 
wards the  east  and  along  the  Point  of  Tiburon ;  as  we  rode 
^long  he  pointed  out  Point  Tiburon  as  part  of  his  rancho.^, 
i^e  rode  to  the  extreme  point. 

Q.  15.  What  was  the  boundary  on  the  east  side  ?  A. 
I  understood  from  him  then  that  it  was  Point  Tiburon* 
The  margin  of  the  Bay  of  San  Francisco  that  comes  to  the 
East  or  about  the  east  side  of  Point  Tiburon. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  move  to  strike  out  the  motion  and 
^inswer  as  being  incompetent  to  prove  the  boundaries  of 
this  rancho  as  defined  in  the  record  of  juridical  possession. 

The  witness,  in  describing  the  east  boundary  in  answer 
to  question  Ko.  15,  had  the  official  plat  of  survey  before 
him,  and  pointed  with  his  hand  to  the  edge  of  the  land 
opposite  to  post  557,  and  says,  Here  Read  pointed  out  to  me 
«,il  the  land  within  the  official  survey  east  of  this  place  to 
Raccoon  Straits  as  his  rancho.  We  started  from  Read's  old 
house  and  rode  to  the  ab^ve  place  or  point  near  station 
557,  of  the  survey. 

Q.  16,  Which  was  the  point  to  which  you  rode  ?  A. 
To  Puint  Tiburon.  He  took  us  along  the  middle  of  land 
as  far  as  we  could  go  down. 

Q.  17.  You  have  stated  in  a  formed  answer  that  you 
rode  to  the  extreme  point.  Point  that  extreme  point  out 
on  the  map.  A.  We  rode  to  some  prominent  place  very- 
near  the  extreme  eastern  point  of  land  Within  the  survey, 
when  we  could  overlook  the  Raccoon  Straits  and  could  see 
the  Bay  around  the  point.  He  pointed  out  to  us  all  this 
land  as  his  claim,  and  showed  us  his  horses  and  cattle  all 
about  us. 

Q.  18.  What  did  he  point  out  to  you  as  his  boundary 
t  )wards  Raccoon  Straits?  A.  Following  the  margin  of 
the  Bay  around  the  entire  easterji  point  ot^  land  he  said  was 
his  boundary  on  that  side.  The  witness  having  the  official 
map  before  him,  draws  his  hand  around  the  extreme  east- 
ern part  of  the  official  survey  and  around  the  "Peninsula 
Island,"  and  says  that  was  the  land  he  claimed. 

Q.  19.  What  was  the  boundary  of  the  rancho  on  the 
$outh  side?  A.  On  the  south.  As  we  stood  here  at  the 
extreme  point,  he  said,  the  margin  of  the  Bay  all  along 
the  Saucelito  and  Richardson's  Bay. 


74 

At  this  point  it  is  announced,  by  Hon.  Walker  VanDyke^ 
that  a  telegram  announces  the  death  of  Hon.  Henry  Wit- 
son,  Vice-President  of  the  United  States,  and  upon  hi^ 
motiou,  all  parties  concurring,  further  proceedings  are  post- 
poned till  10  o'clock  A.  M.  to-morrow  morning,  out  of 
respect  to  his  memory. 


Tuesday,  Koveraber  SBc!,  18T1, 

Q.  20.  How  far  tmvards  the  west  along  the  margin  of 
the  Bay  did  he  say  the  boundary  line  extended?  A.  He 
irtated  it  followed  along  the  margin  of  the  Bay  up  to  the 
western  boundary  of  his  ranch o. 

Q.  2L  How  often  did  you  visit  the  rancho  ?  A,  From 
the  year  1838  to  January,  1842.  I  probably  visited  him 
five  or  six  or  seven  times  per  year. 

Q.  22.  Wore  you  in  the  habit  of  seeing  the  rancha 
often  when  you  did  not  visit  it  ? 

Objected  to  by  Gardner  as  immaterial. 

A.  Oftentimes  when  I  went  to  San  Rafael  and  Sonoma 
on  business,  landing  at  Saucelito,  I  rode  through  Reed's 
rancho. 

Q.  28.  Did  you  ever  at  any  time  hear  of  any  person 
claiming  or  exercising  any  acts  of  ownership  in  the  tract  of 
land  you  have  described  other  than  Juan  Read  ? 

Objected  by  Gardner  as  immaterial. 

A.  I  never  did. 

Q.  24.     Did  you  know  his  brand  ?     A.  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  25.     Were  you  in  the  habit  of  buying  his  hides  ? 

Same  objections  by  Gardner. 

A.  I  often  received  hides  from  John  Read  for  E^athan 
Spear. 

Q.  26.     Over  what  part  of  this  tract  did  his  cattle  pasture? 

Same  objections. 

A.  I  have  seen  around  his  house,  some  distance  from 
his  house,  and  also  on  the  Point  of  Tiburon,  sometimes 
called  Read's  Point,  cattle  and  horses  scattered  around  over 
the  tract. 

Q.  27.  Where  was  Juan  Read  living  at  that  time?  A. 
Living  on  his  rancho.  I  could  point  it  out  on  the  map 
here. 

Q.  28.  Was  it  the  same  place  and  the  same  house  all  the 
time  ?     A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  29.     Did  he  rebuild  it,  or  add  to  it,  during  that  time  ? 


75 

A.  When  I  first  visited  Read's  ranclio,  there  was  a  house 
on  it  that  Head  lived  in;  I  presume  that  he  built  it.  The 
addition  to  his  house  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  30.  Was  there  any  other  house  upon  the  rancho,  or 
any  signs  of  any  other,  or  any  ruins  of  any  other  ?  A.  I 
do  not  remember  of  seeing  any  other  house  on  the  rancho 
besides  the  one  that  Read  and  his  family  lived  in. 

Q.  31.  Were  you  in  the  habit  of  sailing  through  ''Rac- 
coon Straits?" 

Same  objection  by  Gardner. 

A.     Yes,  sir,  very  often. 

Q.  32.  What  was  the  course  of  your  dealings  with  the 
rancheros,  and  what  occasion  had  you  to  visit  the  ranchos  ? 

Same  objection  by  Gardner. 

A.  Merchants  in  those  days  sold  goods  for  hides  and 
tallow.  We  dehvered  the  goods  to  the  different  ranchos 
around  the  bay,  and  received  their  hides  and  tallow  at  the 
embarcaderos  of  each  rancho;  the}-  generally  had  embarca- 
deros  on  the  bay.  Generallj^  we  sold  goods  on  twelve 
months'  credit ;  generally  from  killing  season  to  killing 
season.  I  visited  the  ranchos  to  deliver  goods  and  to  re- 
ceive hides  and  tallow  in  payment. 

Q.  33.  Was  it  a  part  of  your  business  to  know  the  stand- 
ing of  your  customers,  the  extent  of  their  land,  and  the 
number  of  their  cattle  ? 

Same  objection  by  Gardner. 

A.     Necessarily  it  was. 

Q.  34.  To  your  knowledge,  was  the  title  of  Juan  Read 
to  the  land  you  have  described  ever  questioned  by  the  Mex- 
ican officials  or  people  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  as  immaterial  and  incompetent. 

A.     No  ;  I  never  heard  it  discussed  or  questioned. 

Cross- Examination  by  Mullen  ^  Hyde, 

Q.  1.  When  did  you  come  to  California?  A.  In  1838^ 
to  stay  permanently  ;  I  had  visited  the  coast  prior  to  that, 
trading  up  and  dow^n  the  coast. 

Q.  2.  In  what  business  were  you  engaged  in  during  the 
first  eighteen  months  after  your  arrival  in  California?  A.  I 
was  a  clerk  and  bookkeeper  for  Nathan  Spear,  of  Boston, 
in  Yerba  Buena;  I  attended  to  his  business,  as  clerk  and 
bookkeeper;  also,  in  going  around  the  bay  delivering  goods 
and  receiving  hides  and  tallow. 

Q.  3.    How  old  were  you  when  you  first  came  to  Califor- 


76 

nia  and  engaged  in   sucli  capacity  ?     A.  Sixteen  and  a  half 
{16J)  years  old. 

Q.  4.  At  this  age,  when  you  visited  the  ranchos  around 
the  Bay  of  San  Francisco,  was  it  under  the  direction  of  some 
other  person,  or  was  you  in  charge  of  such  business  ? 

A.  Always  under  the  direction  of  Kathan  Spear,  by 
whom  I  was  emj^loyed. 

Q.  5.  Did  he  usually  accompany  you  on  these  trips.  A. 
Sometimes. 

Q.  6.  When  he  did  not,  was  there  any  one  else  older 
than  yourself  who  did  accompany  3'ou?  •  A.  I  presume  the 
sailors  attached  to  the  little  schooners  were  older  than  I  was. 

Q.  7.  What  period  of  the  year  was  the  killing  season  ? 
A.  It  generally  commenced  July  Isr  and  ended  October  Ist, 
of  each  year;  they  were  considered  the  fattest  at  that 
period. 

Q.  8.  Did  you  have  any  business  other  than  that  you 
have  stated  in  your  direct  examination  ?  A.  No,  sir  ;  sim- 
ply selling  goods,  and  receiving  the  hides  and  tallow. 

Q.  9.  If  the  killing  season,  as  by  you  stated,  was  between 
July  and  October  of  each  year,  please  explain  to  us  the  ob- 
ject of  your  first  visit,  in  December,  1838,  and  also  the  sec- 
ond visit  in  1839,  in  the  spring.  A.  Oftentimes  goods  were 
carried  to  the  different  ranchos  different  times  during  the 
year;  and,  also,  hides  would  frequently  be  received  from 
the  rancheros  after  the  first  of  October  and  before  the  first 
of  July,  from  cattle  tliey  would  kill  during  the  above-stated 
time  for  their  beef  and  support. 

Q.  10.  Can  you  recall  at  the  present  time  any  circum- 
stance that  called  for  the  necessity  of  a  ride  by  John  Read 
and  yourself  over  his  lancho  at  the  time  you  state  he  pointed 
out  to  you  the  boundaries  thereof  A.  The  rancheros,  gen- 
erally in  spring  of  the  year,  are  fond  of  inviting  comer- 
ciantes  (merchants)  to  ride  over  with  them  and  point  out 
the  boundaries  of  their  rancho. 

Q.  11.  Then  it  was  simply  in  accordance  with  a  custom 
which  prevailed  at  that  time  between  rancheros  and  the 
merchants  with  whom  they  dealt  ?  A.  Yes,  sir;  they  were 
fond  of  showing  their  fine  horses,  letting  the  merchants  ride 
their  fine  horses,  showing  their  ranchos  and  their  manados, 
and  their  possessions  generally. 

Q.  12.  Did  you  then,  or  anj^  time  thereafter,  ever  ex- 
amine the  title  papers  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera,  claimed 
by  John  Read  ?     A.  Never  did. 

Q.  13.     Did  you  know  anything  of  the  title  of  this  ranch, 


•     77 

Except  wliat  you  Icariit  from  himself?     A.  I  simply  know 
hy  report  that  he  had  a  title  to  the  ranch. 

Q.  14.  Was  your  knowledi^e  of  the  boundaries  of  this 
ranch  derived  fi'om  the  same  character  of  source  ?  A.  My 
knowledge  as  to  the  part  I  have  already  described  in  my 
<lirect  examination  was  from  John  Read  himself 

Q.  15.  lu  your  dealings  with  the  rancheros  as  a  merchant, 
what  measured  the  basis  of  credit  that  you  accorded  them 
inyourde^dings  with  them?  A.  Measured  that  by  the  num- 
ber of  cattle  each  ranchero  had.  The  merchants  frequently 
intended  the  rodios  of  cattle  which  the  rancheros  had  ;  the 
merchants  could  generdlly  teJl  what  the  rancheros  had,  and 
Ivcad  was  generally  regarded  as  a  very  high-minded  man.  The 
ILrn^ers  were  universalJy  esteemed  as  high-minded  men,  and 
Kead  was  eoiisidered  as  a  high-minded  man. 

Q.  16,  Was  the  extent  of  credit  iliat  you  accorded  the 
rancheros  also  measured,  or  determined  by  the  extent  of 
land  that  they  owned  or  claimed?  A.  I'es,  sir;  but  more 
|>ariicularly  to  the  number  of  cattle  each  ranchero  had.  The 
anerclmnts  placed  more  value  on  their  cattle  than  on  their 
lands. 

Q.  17,  Did  t'lie  number  of  c.ittle  that  each  i*anchero  owned 
l)ear  any  relation  to  the  extent  of  land  that  he  owned  or 
<;laimed  ?  A.  ISTot  particularly  ;  generally  a  ranchero  would 
have  no  more  than  his  rancho  w^ould  support — about  2,000 
head  to  the  league, 

Q.  18.  About  how  many  cattle  did  John  Read  usually 
rodeo  during  the  time  you  dealt  with  him  as  merchant?  A. 
I  think,  in  I80&,  Read  had  600  head  of  cattle,  besides  horses* 
Subsequent,  up  to  the  time  of  his  death,  he  had  more  cattle, 
1,200  or  1,500  head. 

Q,  19,  Did  Read  ever  tell  you  the  extent  of  land  that 
lie  claimed  ?     A.  I  do  not  remember  that  he  did. 

Q.  20.  Did  lie  ever  point  out  to  you  the  boundaries  of 
this  rancho  other  than  in  the  direction  of  Point  Tiburon  ? 
A.  I  think  he  mentioned,  during  the  ride  I  spoke  of  in  my 
direct  examination,  that  he  was  bounded  on  the  south  by 
the  Rancho  Saucelito;  1  am  not  positive  to  his  western  line. 

Q.  21.  Did  he  point  out  the  northern  boundary,  or 
mention  it  to  you  ?  A.  While  we  were  out  on  the  side 
that  I  have  mentioned,  he  pointed  out  and  said  that  grove 
of  redwood,  pointing  northward,  belongs  to  me. 

Q.  22.  Please  look  at  the  official  map  of  the  Rancho 
Corte  Madera  and  point  out  thereon,  and  the  whole  extent 
thereof,  the   place   called    by   you    Point  Tiburon,  or  the 


78 

tano:ue  of  land  Tibiiron?  A,  The  witness,  pointing  with 
Ijis  hand  open,  says,  from  this  point  "Sandy  Flat"  on  the 
south  side  of  the  main  land,  and  "Station  479,"  at  the 
word  "Liuirel"  on  the  north  side  of  the  main  land,  and 
sa^'s  :  All  the  land  from  here  down  to  the  extreme  eastern 
end  of  the  land  embrac^ed  in  the  survey  was  called  Point 
Tiburon,  and  universally  known  as  Point  Tiburon  by  every 
person,  and  every  sailor  that  coursed  around  the  Bay  in 
those  days. 

Q.  23.  How  many  times  did  you  ride  with  John  Read 
to  Point  Tiburon,  in  the  manner  by  you  stated  ?     A.  Once, 

Q.  24.  In  pointing  out  the  boundaries  as  by  you  de- 
scribed, did  he  do  it  while  sitting  on  horsebacky  and  by 
waving  his  hand  ;  or  did  he  ride  along  and  &ay  this  is  my 
boundary  here,  or  boundary  tliere  ? 

Objected  to  by  Sharp  as  immaterial. 

A.  As  we  rode  along,  he  pointed  with  his  hand  to  the 
different  places. 

Q.  25.  Do  you  kni)w  whether  the  knowledge  of  the 
land  called  by  you  and  pointed  out,  Tiburon,  constituted  a 
portion  of  the  Read  Rancho,  was  divided  from  any  other 
person  except  John  Read  himself,  and  in  the  ride  as  by  you 
stated  ?  A.  It  is  always  known  by  all  the  old  settlers  a» 
part  of  Read's  Ranch,  and  I  have  heard  the  whole  point 
called  Read's  Point,  as  often  as  I  have  heard  it  called  Point 
Tiburon. 

Q.  26.  Did  you  ever  know  any  claim  set  up  to]a  part  of 
Tiburon  by  Limentour  ?     A.  Kever  did. 

Q.  27.  Did  John  Read  ever  point  out  to  you  any 
mounds  or  structures  of  masonry  as  being  the  majomers  of 
his  rancho?     A.  He  never  did. 

Q.  28.  Did  he  ever  tell  you  that  he  had  ever  established 
any  on  his  rancho  ?     A.  lie  never  did. 

Q.  29.  Between  1838  and  1843,  did  Mrs.  Read  have 
any  cattle  separate  and  apart  from  her  husband  ?  A.  I 
could  not  tell  you. 

Q.  30.  Did  you  ever  attend  any  rodeo  in  Marin  County 
when  any  cattle  were  rodeod  as  Mrs.  Read's  ?  A.  'No,  sir, 
I  have  attended  many  rodeos  in  Marin  County.  I  have 
been  at  Tim  Murphy's  and  Ig.  Pacheco's  rodeos.  I  recol- 
lect the  separating  of  cattle  as  Juan  Read's,  but  I  never 
knew  of  any  being  separated  belonging  to  Mrs.  Read. 

Q.  31.  Do  you  know  whether  the  cattle  called  Read's 
cattle  are  accustomed  to  graze  at  any  place  other  than  on 
the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  I     A.  I  do  not. 


79 

Q.  32.  How  maii}^  times  between  1838  and  1843  were 
you  on  Ti boron  or  on  the  tongue  of  land  you  describe  as 
l*oint  Tiburon  ?  A.  On  horseback,  in  company  with  John 
Head  and  K'athan  Spear,  in  1839,  once ;  and  only  once  from 
1838  to  1843  ;  but  I  have  hinded  at  the  point  different  times 
from  schooner  anchored  near  the  shore,  waiting  for  the  turn 
of  tide ;  and  have  ridden  through  on  horseback  in  going 
from  SauceUto  to  San  Rafael,  cutting  across  the  most  north- 
ern part. 

Q.  33.  Please  describe  the  Read  brand,  he  used  in 
branding  his  cattle.     A.  It  was  the  letters  J.  R. 

Cross-examination  by  31r,  Throckmorton. 

Q.  1.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  Punta  de  San  Quen- 
tin  Rancho?  A.  I  knew  of  it;  Capt.  Cooper  lived  at  Mon- 
terey. 

Q.  2.  Do  you  know  whether  he  was  the  colindante  of 
the  Read  rancho  on  the  north.  A.  I  think  he  was;  I  think 
his  rancho  joined  it  on  the  north. 

Q.  3.  Do  you  know  that  of  your  own  knowledge?  A. 
I  never  saw  Cooper's  title;  I  understood  it  from  general 
report. 

Mr.  Sharp  objects  to  the  answer  to  this  question,  as  imma- 
terial and  irrelevant. 

Cross-Examination  by  Gardner, 

Q.  1.  At  what  time  was  Cooper  colandante  with  the 
Read  rancho  ?  A.  I  knew  Cooper  in  1838  ;  he  was  colin- 
dante of  Reed  in  1840 ;  Cooper  was  the  owner  of  the  ran- 
cho, but  (lid  not  live  on  his  rancho. 

CJ.  2.  Where  were  the  men  cutting  timber,  and  when 
was  it  ?  A.  They  were  cutting  timber  at  Corte  Madera  as 
early  as  1840 ;  I  cannot  put  my  liand  on  the  spot  on  the 
map  ;  they  cut  lumber  for  Capt.  Cooper  and  Juan  Reed. 

Q.  3.  Did  you  see  them  cutting  timber  ?  A.  I  have 
been  at  the  Corte  Madera  when  they  were  cutting  lumber 
on  account  of  Cooper  and  Juan  Read;  I  have  been  there 
with  a  schooner;  the  lumber  was  put  on  a  schooner  and 
brought  here  to  Yerba  Buena. 

Q.  4.  Were  these  parties  cutting  wood  together  ?  A. 
^o,  sir  ;  separate  parties. 

Q.  5.     Point  out  on  the  map  the  point  where  they  were 
cutting  timber.     A.  I  cannot  do  it ;  it  is  so  many  years  ago 
I  cannot  remember  the  exact  point. 
.  Q.  6.     How  far  ^apart  was  the  Read  Corte  Madera  froiu 


80 

tlie  Cooper  Corte  Madera  ?  A.  May  have  been  half  a  mile 
apart ;  I  cannot  remember.  The  Corte  Madera  was  all  one 
belt;  thev  were  cutting  at  different  parts  or  places  on  the 
belt. 

Q.  7.  How  large  and  how  long  was  that  Corte  Madera  tim- 
ber ?  A.  I  cannot  tell.  There  was  a  forest  in  them.  I 
do  not  know  where  Tamalpais  is.  It  was  called  in  early 
days  Read's  Mountain,  Sierra  Don  Juan  Reed  ;  I  know  where 
the  mountain  is,  but  I  did  not  know  it  as  Tamalpais  at  that 
time. 

Q.  8.  How  do  you  know  who  was  cutting  timber  for 
Capt.  Cooper  or  for  Read  ?  A.  I  had  occasion  to  go  there 
and  o^et  a  load  of  lumber,  many  loads  of  lumber,  in  1841 
and  1840. 

Q.  9.  How  do  you  know  what  timber  was  cut  on  Read's 
rancho  or  Cooper's  rancho,  of  your  own  knowledge  ?  A. 
The  men  that  cut  for  Cooper  brought  the  lumber,  and  said 
it  was  cut  on  Cooper's  rancho;  it  was  placed  to  the  credit 
of  Cooper.  The  lumber  cut  on  Read's  rancho  was  brought 
to  me,  and  placed  to  the  credit  of  Read. 

Q.  10.  Do  you  know  the  boundary  between  the  two 
ranchos?  A.  No,  I  do  not;  the  lumber  from  these  two 
places  was  hauled  to  one  landing,  known  as  the  Corte  Ma- 
dera Landing. 

Q.  11.  On  whose  land  was  the  embarcadero  situated,  of 
which  you  have  spoken  as  the  place  at  which  you  received 
lumber?  A.  I  do  not  remember  now;  I  am  under  the  im- 
pression it  was  claimed  by  J.  B.  R.  Cooper. 

Q.  12.  How  far  from  the  embarcadero  was  the  lumber 
cut  ?  A.  I  do  not  know  exactly ;  it  may  be  from  one-quarter 
to  one-half  a  mile. 

Q.  13.  In  what  direction  from,  the  embarcadero  were 
they  cutting  this  lumber?  A.  As  near  as  I  can  remember, 
from  the  San  Quentin  or  Corte  Madero  Embarcadero, 
Cooper's  Corte  Madera  would  be  about  NW.  from  the  land- 
ing, andJRead's  Corte  Madera  about  South  -West  or  West 
of"  South  -West. 

Q.  14.  How  many  times  have  you  been  at  that  embar- 
cadero for  lumber?  A.  From  twenty-five  to  thirty  times  ; 
may  be  more. 

Q.  15.  Were  you  ever  there  in  company  with  Juan  Read? 
A.  1^0,  sir. 

Q.  16.  Can  you  point  out  the  position  of  that  embarca- 
dero on  that  survey  ?  A.  I  cannot  point  it  out ;  I  have  not 
been  in  there  since  1843.     My  impression  is,  with  the  map 


81 

before  me,  the  embarcadero  was  on  Corte  Madera  Creek, 
near  the  letter  *'  0,"  at  the  end  of  the  word  ranch o,  in  the 
'N.W.  corner  of  the  map. 

Cross-examined  by  Howard, 

Q.  1.  Please  state  it'  you  know  anything  further  of  the 
boundaries  of  the  Read  rancho  than  that  which  you  have 
stated  in  your  direct  examination. 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Shanklin  for  the  reason  that  the  wit- 
ness has  mentioned  boundaries  in  his  cross-examination  not 
mentioned  in  his  direct. 

A.  Ko,  sir,  I  do  not. 

Q.  2.  Was  not  the  Corte  Madera  of  which  you  have 
spoken  identically  the  same  as  the  creek  at  the  head  of  San 
Que n tin  Bay  ?  A.  It  was  the  same.  The  creek  at  the 
head  of  San  Quentin  Bay  was  the  Corte  Madera.  At  the 
upper  end  was  the  Corte  Madera  landing. 

Q.  3.  Is  the  Corte  Madera  of  which  you  speak  at  the 
head  of  the  creek  on  the  north  side  of  the  official  survey  now 
between  Point  San  Quentin  aiid  the  Read  rancho  ?  A.  It  is 
the  cren^k.  At  the  end  ot*  the  salt  marsh  in  the  letter  O  is 
the  Corte  Madera  landing. 

By  Mr.  Shanklin: 

Q.  1.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  Corte  Madera  in  the 
Read  rancho  than  the  one  you  have  just  described  ?  If  so, 
whereabouts  was  it  ? 

Objected  to  by  Sharp  as  irrelevant  and  immaterial. 

A.  I  think  it  laid  to  the  west  of  Read's  house.  That's 
ray  impression  now. 

Q.  2.  Please  state  what  you  said  in  reply  to  a  question 
of  Mr.  Howard  concerning  this  Corte  Madera  and  Richard- 
son cutting  timber  thereon. 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Sharp  as  incompetent  and  irrelevant, 
as  no  such  question  appears  upon  the  record. 

A.  My  answer  to  Mr.  Hovvard's  question  was  that  I  knew 
of  another  Corte  Ma'lera,  which  laid  about  west  of  Read's 
house,  and  the  timber  on  it  was  cut  both  by  Read  and 
Richardson. 

Examination  by  J.  B.  Howard, 

Q.  1.  Did  you  know  to  whom  the  land  belonged  ?  A. 
My  impression  is  that  it  was  claimed  by  Richardson  and 
Rjad  both.  Personally  I  did  not  know  to  whom  it  belonged. 

Q.  2.  At  what  time  was  it  that  you  first  became  ac- 
quainted with  Capt.  Richardson  on  the  Saucelito  Rancho  ? 


Q. 

4. 

lito  ? 

A 

Q. 

5. 

Q. 

6. 

82 

A.  I  first  became  acquainted  with  him   at  Yerba  Buena, 
1838,  and  I  also  met  Capt.  Richardson  at  Saucelito  in  1888. 

Q.  3.  Was  Capt.  Eichardson  residing  at  Saucelito  in  the 
year  1838,  and,  if  so,  where  ?  A.  From"  July,  1838,  to  the 
last  of  that  year,  about  half  of  the  time  he  lived  at  Sauce- 
lito, and  the  balance  of  the  time  of  that  year,  he  lived  in 
Yerba  Buena.  He  lived  at  Saucelito  at  (I  don't  know  the 
name  of  the  place)  Richardson's  Old  Homestead  or  Ranch 
House. 

Did  Richardson's  family  reside  with  him  at  Sauce- 
.  Yes,  sir. 

During  that  time  ?     A.  Yes,  sir. 
And  for  how  long  afterwards  did  they  continue  to 
reside  there,  to   your  knowledge  ?      A.  Capt.  Richardson 
lived  most  of  the  time  on  the  Rancho  Saucelito  with  his 
family  up  to  the  time  of  his  death. 

Q.  7.     From  what  date  ? 

Motion  made  by  Mr.  Shanklin  to  strike  out  question  as 
irrelevant  and  immaterial,  and  ruling  called  for.  Further 
objection  made  on  account  of  the  absence  ot*  the  Surveyor- 
General. 

Question  'No.  7  withdrawn. 

Q.  8.  At  what  time  did  you  first  become  acquainted 
with  Juan  Read  ? 

On  account  of  the  absence,  all  questions  in  relation  to 
Capt.  Richardson  withdrawn. 

Q.  8.  At  what  time  did  you  first  become  acquainted 
with  Juan  Read  ?     A.  In  the  year  1838. 

Q.  9.  Did  Jnan  Read  ever  point  out  to  you  the  western 
boundary^  of  his  rancho  ?  A.  My  impression  is  now  that  he 
did  not. 

Q.  10.  Do  you  know  positively  whether  he  did  or  did 
not?     A.  Ko:  I  do  not  know  positively. 

Q.  11.  Did  Juan  Read  ever  state  to  you  that  he  had 
another  ranch  besides  the  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ?  A. 
No,  sir;  I  do  not  remember  Read  ever  using  the  word 
Presidio.     He  simply  said  Corte  Madera. 

Adjourned  till  10  o'clock  a.  m.  to-morrow. 


83 

Wednesday,  Nov;  24th,  18T5. 
Examination  resumed. 
All  present. 

Gross- Examination  of  Mr,  Davis  hy  J.  B,  Howard. 

•Q.  1.  Whether  you  know  anything  further  of  the  bound- 
aries of  Read's  Rancho  than  that  you  have  testified  to  in 
your  direct  examination  ?  A.  I  do  not ;  with  exception 
that  in  my  cross-examination  I  have  stated  something  about 
the  boundaries  that  perhaps  I  did  not  in  my  direct  examin- 
ation— or  in  other  words,  with  regard  to  the  Corte  Madera. 

Q.  2.  By  Corte  Madera,  do  you  mean  the  place  at  the 
head  of  the  creek  flowing  into  San  Quentin  Bay,  on  the 
northeast  side  of  the  rancho  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Gardner  that  the  question  assumes  a 
fact  not  testified  to  by  witness. 

A.  I  mean  the  Corte  Madera  claimed  by  Juan  Read  and 
Capt.  Cooper,  and  the  landing  generally  called  Corte 
Madera  Landing. 

Q.  3.  Point  out  the  Corte  Madera  on  the  ofiicial  map. 
A.  The  Corte  Madera  Landing  was  in  the  vicinity  of  the 
Corte  Madera.  Witness  points  to  the  creek  on  the  north 
of  the  map,  and  says  the  Corte  Madera  Embarcadero  was 
about  the  letter  "  o  "  in  the  word  rancho — somewhere  there, 
I  don't  undertake  to  locate  it  exactly.  The  Corte  Madera 
lay  from  the  landing  about  a  quarter  to  half  a  mile  distant, 
westerly. 

Q.  4.*^  State  if  you  know  of  your  own  knowledge  to  whom 
the  land  belonged  in  which  the  embarcadero  of  Corte  Ma- 
dera was  located.  A.  It  was  used  as  the  landing  for  the 
Corte  Madera  when  timber  was  cut  by  Reed  and  Cooper,  or 
their  men. 

Mr.  Cutter  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  Mr.  Davis  tes- 
tified as  to  cutting  timber  yesterday,  before  he  was  cross- 
examined  by  Mr.  Gardner,  and  that  his  answer  was  uot  taken 
down,  and  asked  that  his  direct  testimony  be  now  corrected 
so  that  the  testimony  need  not  stand  as  original  testimony, 
elicited  by  Mr.  Gardner,  referring  to  question  2d,  page  223, 
and  following  being  the  cross-examination  of  the  Corte  Ma- 
dera and  cutting  timber. 

The  witness  says :  "  My  recollection  is,  that  I  answered 
the  questions  of  another  party  than  Mr.  Gardner,  and  I 
think  it  was  Mr.  Throckmorton,  and  stated  that  I  knew  of 
the  men  cutting  timber  on  Corte  Madera  for  Reed  and 
Cooper ;  and  Mr.  Peter  Gardner's  questions  two  (2)  and  fol- 


84 

lowing  were  in  cross-examination  of  matters  stated  before 
Mr.  Gardner  began.'' 

Gross-Examination  by  Gardner, 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything,  of  your  own  knowledge? 
of  the  northern  and  west  boundary  of  the  rancho  ?  A.  I  do 
not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  the  Arroyo  de  los  Esteros  is  ? 
A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  the  Arroyo  Animas  is  ?  A.  I 
do  not. 

Q.  Do  yoQ  know  where  the  Arroyo  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio  is?     A.  ]^o,  sir, 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  the  Arroyo  Corte  Madera  del 
Pablo  is  ?     A.  jS"o,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Brooks : — 

Q.  Do  you  know  any  of  these  arroyos  in  any  way,  or  did 
you  ever  hear  of  them  before  ?  A.  I  have  probably  heard 
of  them,  but  it  is  some  30  years  ago;  I  cannot  remember 
them  ;  it  is  80  years  since  I  was  on  the  Bead  rancho;  I  was 
there  in  1846  the  last  time. 

By  Mr.  Howard — Objected,  as  immaterial,  irrelevant,  and 
not  mentioned  in  the  record  of  juridical  possession. 

Q.  Was  there  any  fence  or  obstruction  in  riding  from 
Read's  house  to  the  extreme  point  of  Tiburon  ? 

By  Mullen  &  Hyde — Ohjeeted  to,  as  incompetent  and  im- 
material. 

A.  There  was  a  corral  a  few  hundred  yards  from  his 
house.  It  was  the  only  thing  I  saw  in  the  way  of  a  fence  in 
going  from  Read's  house  to  Tiburon. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  travel  from  the  Read  house  to  the  em- 
barcadero,  or  to  Ban  Rafael  ?     A  good  manv  times. 

WILLIAM  II.  DAVIS. 

G.  F.  Allardt  being  called  as  a  witness  by  Mr.  Brooks,  i» 
first  duly  sworn,  and  deposes  as  follows  : 

Q.  1.  What  is  your  name,  age,  occupation  and  resi- 
dence ?  A.  My  name  is  G.  F.  "Allardt ;  age,  42  ;  resi- 
dence, San  Francisco;  occupation,  civil  engineer  and 
surveyor. 

Q.  2.  Did  you  hold  any  official  position  connected  with 
the  Tide  and  Marsh  Land  Commission  of  this  State — if  so, 
at  what  time  ?  A.  I  was  Surveyor  and  Chief  Engineer  for 
the  Board  of  Tide  Land  Commissioners,  for  the  State  of 
California. 


85 

Q.  3.     During  what  penod  ?    A.  From  1868  to  1873. 

Q.  4.  What  Hnos  of  the  harbor  of  San  Francisco  did  you 
survey  in  that  capacity  ? 

Objected  to  by  Capt.  Mullen  as  totally  irrelevant,  and  if 
answered  fully  will  take  all  day. 

A.  I  surveyed  the  boundaries  of  the  salt  marsh  and  tide 
lands  belouiijing  to  the  State  of  California. 

Q.  5.  Did  that  include  the  ordinary  high  water  and 
low  water  lines,  and  the  line  of  extreme  high  tide  ?  A.  It 
did. 

Q.  6.  How  does  the  exterior  line  of  the  salt  marsh  cor- 
respond with  ordinary  high  water  mark?  A.  It  coincides 
or  is  identical  with  it,  according  to  my  survey. 

Q.  7.  Can  you  tell,  from  3M)ur  experience  as  a  surveyor 
in  the  waters  of  California,  whether  the  prosecution  of 
hydraulic  mining  has  any  effect ;  if  so,  what  in  respect  to 
salt  marshes  in  the  bay  ? 

Objected  to  by  Capt.  Mullen,  unless  the  locus  of  the  salt 
marsh  is  defined,  and  that  it  be  made  to  apply  to  the  salt 
marsh  contiguous  to  the  land  in  controversy. 

A.  I  have  not  surveyed  any  salt  marshes  situated  at  the 
mouth  of  streams  on  whicli  hydraulic  mining  is  practiced, 
and  have,  therefore,  not  observed  any  effects  upon  the 
marshes  of  San  Fi'ancisco  Bay  from  hydraulic  mining. 

Q.  8.  Have  you,  during  the  time  you  have  been  survey- 
ing, noticed  any  increase  or  decrease  of  the  salt  marshes  ? 

Objected  to  by  Capt.  Mullen,  unless  it  is  confined  to  the 
land  in  question. 

A.  I  have  observed  that  the  washings  from  the  hills  par- 
tially reclaimed  the  salt  marsh — that  is,  makes  more  dry 
land;  but  that  the  action  of  t!ie  waves  on  the  outer  edge  of 
the  salt  marsh  had  decreased  its  area. 

Q.  9.  Did  you  accompany  Leander  Ransom  to  the 
Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ? 

Objected  to,  unless  some  time  is  stated,  as  irrelevant. 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  10.  When,  and  for  what  purpose  ?  A.  In  1873,  at  his 
request  I  did ;  for  the  purpose  of  complying  with  his  request. 
He  requested  me  to  go  over  there,  and  I  went  over. 

Q.  11.     What  did  you   do  then?     A.     I  pointed   out  to 
Mr.  Ransom  the  line  run  by  me  under  Deputy  Surveyor  R.  • 
C.  Mathewson  in  1858  in  the  vicinity  of  Juan  Read's  old 
adobe  house. 

Q.  12.  Is  that  the  purpose  for  which  you  went  over 
ther-e  ?     A.     It  was. 


86 

Q.  13.  Did  you  survey  the  exterior  lines  of  this  rancho 
or  Hoy  of  tliem  while  acting  as  surveyor  of  the  Board  of 
Tide  Land  Commissioners  't 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  as  being  immaterial  and  incom- 
]>etent,  unless  it  can  be  shown  by  the  records  of  this  office 
that  he,  as  a  Deputy  Surveyor,  was  authorized  to  make  a 
survey  of  this  rancho  so  as  an  officer  of  the  State  of  Califor- 
nia, he  was  neither  authorized  or  instructed  to  make  any 
survey  of  this  or  any  other  rancho. 

A.  I  surveyed  the  salt  marsh  and  tide  lands  belonging 
to  the  State  ot*  California  aroutid  and  adjacent  to  the  land 
that  I  supposed  to  be  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio 
at  that  time. 

Q.  14.  Look  at  the  official  plat  and  state  whether  you 
surveyed  in  that  capacity  tlie  shore  line  from  the  mouth  of 
the  Arroyo  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  to  the  Arroyo  Holon 
or  any  part  thereof.  If  so  what  ?  A.  I  did,  I  surveyed 
the  entire  shore  line  between  those  two  points. 

Q.  15.  J)id  you  also  traverse  the  principal  streams  and 
estuaries  between  those  tw^o  points  within  the  salt  marsh? 
A.     I  did. 

Q.  18.  What  part  did  you  take  in  the  survey  by  Wa- 
the\vso!i  ?  A.  I  had  charge  of  his  party,  during  the  Wiiole 
survey. 

Q.  17.  How  far  to  the  west  at  that  time  did  you  carry 
your  survey  or  reconnoisance  ? 

Objecte  I  to  as  the  Mathewscjn  survey  shows  for  itself 

A.  We  surveye  I  nearly  all  the  ranchos  in  Marin  County 
exct^pt  the  S  lucehro  K mcho. 

Q.  18.     Q  lestion  17  repeated.    A.    To  the  Pacific  Ocean. 

Q.  19.  Ill  miking  thit  survey,  did  you  not  in  the  first 
place  make  a  reconnoisance  of  the  exterior  boundaries  of 
the  rancho. 

Ooj(»cte(l  to  by  Mullen  as  he  does  not  designate  what 
survey. 

A.      Yes,  as  far  as  we  could  ascertain  them  at  the  time. 

Q.  20.  What  one  of  the  calls  or  exterior  boundaries  did 
you  have  any  difficulty  in  ascertaining  or  finding  in  the  Ma- 
thewson  survey  of  this  rancho  ? 

Objected  by  Mullen  as  it  does  not  appear  in  the  instruc- 
tions issued  to  Mathewson  that  he  was  directed  to  make 
the  survey  according  to  the  juridical  possession. 

A.  I  left  that  to  R.  Mathewson,  he  being  the  Deputy 
Surveyor.  He  decided  upon  the  calls  and  ordered  me  to 
make  the  survey  accordingly. 


87 

Q.  21.  (Question  20  repeated.)  A.  We  discussed  the 
location  of  the  solar,  the  willows,  the  estuary  east  of  the 
ho  ise,  and  the  location  of  the  Corte  Madera  Creek  and  the 
Holon  Creek,  and  compared  them  with  the  instructions  and 
the  disoiio. 

Q.  22.  Did  you  run  a  line  from  the  "solar"  to  the  "Ar- 
royo Holon  ?"  A.  I  ran  a  line  from  the  point  decided  upon 
by  Mcithevvson  as  the  solar,  due  north  to  the  Arroyo  Holon. 

Q.  23.  What  difficulty  was  there  in  ascertaining  the  es- 
tero  lying  east  of  the  house  ?  A.  There  are  two  esteros 
lying  easterly  of  the  house ;  I  presume  it  was  a  question 
which  was  the  right  one. 

Q.  24.  Will  you  point  out  on  the  official  plat  which  one 
you  settled  upon  as  the  estero  called  for  ?  A.  I  think  it 
was  the  northerly  one  ;  the  one  marked  Embarcadero  on 
the  map,  as  the  one  Iving  east  of  the  house. 

Q.  25.  Where  did  you  find  the  canada  and  arroyo  ?  A. 
Near  the  Read  house. 

*Q.  26.  The  description  calls  for  the  solar  standing  at  the 
slope  and  foi)t  of  the  hills.  Did  you  find  the  edge  of  the 
forest  of  redwoods  and  the  slope  and  foot  of  the  hill  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  that  it  nowhere  appears  among  the 
files  of  this  case  that  Mathewson  was  instructed  to  make  a 
survey  of  this  ranch o  with  any  such  calls  as  his  guide.  The 
same  are  not  contained  either  in  the  decree  of  the  District 
Court  nor  in  the  instructions  to  Mathewson  ;  and  that  these 
questions  propounded  to  witness  relate  exclusively  to  the 
decree  of  the  JBoard  of  Land  Commissioners,  which  was  not 
furnished  M:ithewson  by  the  U.  S.  Surveyor-General. 

A.     I  think  we  did  find  them. 

Q.  27.     You  located  the  solar  somewhere  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  28.  Prom  that  point  did  you  survey  a  line  from  thence 
in  a  northerly  direction  to  the  arroyo  called  Holon  ?  A.  I 
did. 

Q.  29.  Did  you  survey  thence  by  the  waters  of  said  ar- 
royo and  the  Bay  of  San  Francisco,  said  point  serving  as  a 
point  and  a  limit.  A.  We  surveyed  down  the  Arroyo  Ho- 
lon to  where  the  line  connected  with  the  meanders  of  the 
salt  marsh  (inner  line  of  the  salt  marsh),  which  was  previ- 
ously run  ;  the  meanders  are  run  first  all  the  way  around 
the  peninsula. 

Q.  30.  From  the  termination  of  said  westerly  line  at 
the  Arroyo  Holon,  did  you  survey  by  the  waters  of  said  ar- 
royo and  the  Bay  of  San  Francisco  to  the  Point  Tiburon, 


8S 

said  point  serving  as  a  mark  and  limit?  A.  Ko  ;  not  at  that 
time. 

Question  objected  to  by  Mullen,  as  the  question  omits  to 
state  so  much  of  the  call  as  includes  the  words  10,000  varas. 

Q.  31.     When  did  you  do  it  ? 

Same  objection  by  Mullen. 

A.  We  ran  down  the  Holon  to  the  salt  marsh  at  that 
time,  and  connected  with  our  line  of  meanders,  which  we 
hud  previously  run  to  and  around  what  we  supposed  was 
Point  Tiburon. 

Q.  32.  When  did  you  run  that  line  of  meanders  ?  A. 
A  few  weeks  previously,  under  this  same  survey. 

Q.  33.  What  point  did  you  locate  as  Point  Tiburon  at 
that  time?  A.  The  most  easterly  point  of  the  peninsuln,  at 
station  No.  385,  as  shown  on  the  official  (Ransom  survey) 
plot^  now  before  me. 

Q.  84.  Did  3^ou  survey  a  line  thence  running  along  the 
borders  of  said  bay  and  continuing  along  the  shore  of  the 
bay  formed  by  Point  Caballos  and  Point  Tibui-on  to  the 
mouth  of  the  cafiada  and  the  point  of  the  sausal,  which 'is 
near  the  estero  lying  east  of  the  house  ? 

Objected  to,  as  said  question  is  incomplete,  by  purporting 
to  describe  a  call  in  the  Board  of  Land  Commissioners,  and 
oiiiittino-  the  words  4,700  varas. 

A.  We  meandered  along:  hio-h  wjiter  mark  from  Point 
Tiburon  to  the  point  of  tlie  sausal  lying  near  an  estero  east 
of  the  house. 

Q.  "35.  J)id  tViat  meander  line  include  that  which  is 
marked  on  this  map  "Peninsula  Island  ?"       A.  It  cid. 

Q.  36.  Did  the  meander  line  following  ordinary  high 
water  mark  lake  in  the  salt  marsh  ?     A.  It  did. 

^.  37.  In  Hxing  the  position  of  the  various  calls,  with 
'the  exception  of  the  exact  location  of  the  "solar,"  did  you 
require  any  aid  outside  of  the  documents  furnisijed  you  (in- 
cluding the  decree  and  diseiio)  and  your  knowledge  of 
the  country  ?  A.I  depended  upon  Mathewson  for  the 
determination  of  those  points,  and  did  not  at  the  time  pay 
much  personal  attention  to  those  points,  being  occupied 
with  the  direction  of  the  surveying  party. 

Cross- Examination  by  Mullen  ^  Hyde, 

Q.  1.  When  did  you  arrive  in  California  ?  A.  In  April, 
1858. 

Q.  2.  How  many  ranchos  did  you  assist  in  surveying  in 
Cahfornia   prior   to   this   survey  ?      A.  I   assisted   Deputy 


89 

M.itliewson  111  surveying  several  ranches  in  San  M^iteo  Co., 
and  in  makincr  preliminary  siirv-eys  or  locating  rancbos  in 
Marin  County,  including  the  "Read  Rancho." 

Q.  3.  Please  state  what  particular  part  you  took  in  the 
surv^ey  of  the  Corte  Madera  known  as  the  Mathewson  sur- 
vey in  1858.  A.  I  had  charge  of  the  party,  and  ran  the 
lines  as  directed  by  Mr.  Mathewson. 

Q.  4.  In  such  charge,  and  occupying  such  position,  did 
the  duty  devolve  upon  you  to  examine  the  callsof  the  jurid- 
ical measurement  of  this  rancho?     A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  5.  Did  the  duty  devolve  on  you  to  examine  the 
decree  of  the  District  Court,  the  decree  of  the  Board  of 
Land  Commissioners,  or  as  contained  in  the  instructions  of 
the  U.  S.  Surveyor-General  ?     A.I  think  not. 

Q.  6.  Please  look  at  the  return  of  Mathewson  survey,  of 
this  survey,  and  state  if  the  name  of  G.  F.  Allardt,  signed 
thereto,  is  that  of  your  own  signature  ?     A.  It  is. 

Q.  7.  Were  you  in  anywise  responsible  for  the  return  of 
any  special  boundaries  to  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera,  except 
such  as  set  fortli  in  said  return  by  said  Mathewson? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Brooks,  that  the  Hon.  Conmiissioner 
may  be  presumed  to  know  the  duties  of  tlie  officers  and 
emyloyees  in  his  department. 

A.  I  considered  myself  responsible  in  returning  to 
Mathewson  the  correct  courses  and  distances  of  the  survey. 

Q.  8.  When  did  Leander  Ransom  die  ?  A.  I  think 
about  a  year  ago. 

Q.  9.  Please  state  how  many  sides  there  would  be  to  a 
body  of  land  described  as  follows:  Beginning  at  a  point 
ijalled  solar,  and  running  north  4,500  varas  to  a  point; 
thence  s  )utherly  10,000  to  another  point;  thence  westerly 
4,700  varas  to  another  point ;  thence  800  varas  to  the  solar, 
to  the  point  of  beginning  ?  A.  There  would  be  no  sides  to 
it.  It  would  be  merely  a  straight  line  10,000  varas  long; 
as  the  sum  of  the  other  three  sides,  viz  :  4,500,  4,700,  and 
800  varas  is  equal  to  the  fourth  side,  viz  :  10,000  varas,  and 
includes  nothing. 

Cross-  Examination  by  J.  B,  Howard. 

*Q.  1,  Mr.  Allardt,  please  examine  the  plat  of  Mathew- 
son survey  of  the  Corte  Madera  Rancho,  in  evidence,  and 
slate  whether  it  is  identical  with  the  survey  of  which  you 
have  spoken,  and  made  by  you  in  company  with  R.  C. 
Mathewson,  Deputy  Surveyor,  in  October,  1858  ?  A.  It 
appears  to  be  a  correct  representation  of  that  survey  as 
finally  returned  by  Mathewson. 


90 

Q.  2.  Examine  the  official  plat,  anl  s^y  whether  the 
point  marked  ''Post  C.  M.  P.,  181,"  as  the  initial  point  cor- 
rectly represents  the  location  of  the  solar  mentioned  in  the 
records  of  juridical  possession,  as  ascertained  in  the  field  by 
l>epnty  Mathewson,  in  1858,  and  Deputy  Ransom,  of  1878  ? 
A.  The  locality  of  the  solar,  as  located  by  Mathewson,  was 
at  the  end  of,  or  near  the  end  of  the  3d  course.  I  do  not 
know  where  Eansom  considered  the  solar  to  be ;  but  I 
pointed  the  same  locality  out  to  Deputy  Ransom  in  1873, 
when  I  went  over  with  Ransom  to  point  out  the  Mathewson 
lines  in  that  vicinity. 

Here  adjourns  to  Monday,  at  10 1  A.  M. 

Monday,  Nov.  29,  1875. 

Examination  of  Mr.  Allardt  resumed,  by  Mr.  J.  B.  How- 
ard. 

Attorneys  present,  J.  A.  Robinson,  U.  S.  Commissioner. 

Q.  3.  State  definitely  the  location  of  the  solar  on  the 
official  plat  before  you,  as  located  by  Mathewson.  A.  Near 
the  end  of  the  3d  course  on  the  Arroyo  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio,  on  said  map. 

Q.  4.  At  whose  request  were  you  present,  in  1873,  when 
you  pointed  out  the  solar  to  Deputy  Ransom  ?  A.  At  the 
request  of  Deputy  Ransom. 

Q.  5.     Any  other  person  ?     A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  6.  Who  were  present  at  the  time?  A.  Ransom,  Pe- 
ter Gardner,  and  Mr.  Worraouth  and  myself,  is  all  I  can  re- 
member being  ^jresent. 

Q.  7.  Was  uotThos.  B.  Valentine  present  ?  A.  I  thiid<: 
not. 

Q.  8.  Was  not  S.  R.Throckmorton  present  ?  A.  I  think 
not,  on  the  ,i2:r()und. 

Q.  9.  Did  you  see  Throckmorton  that  day;  if  so,  where  ? 
A.  I  think  Deputy  Ransom  and  I  took  lunch  at  Throckmor- 
ton's house  that  day. 

Q.  10.  How  far  is  Throckmorton's  house  located  from 
the  solar  ?     A.  About  half  a  mile. 

Q.  11.  How  did  you  come  to  go  to  lunch  at  Throck- 
morton's house  that  day — by  whose  invitation  ?  A.  On  our 
way  home  I  think  Mr.  Throckmorton  invited  us  in. 

Q.  12.  Did  you  or  Ransom,  on  that  day,  discuss  the  ob- 
ject of  your  visit  to  the  Rancho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Pre- 
sidio ;  and,  if  so,  with  whom  ?  A.  With  those  present ; 
we  did  very  probably  with  Mr.  Throckmorton. 

Q.  13.     Did  Throckmorton  indicate   his  satisfaction  or 


91 

acquiescence  of  the  location   of  the  initial  point  or  solar, 
and  of  the  west  line  of  the  Corte  Madera  rancho  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Throckmorton,  for  the  reason  that 
there  was  no  west  line  pointed  out  or  suggested  bj^  anybody 
at  that  time. 

A.  I  do  not  know;  I  don't  remember  what  he  said  on 
that  occasion. 

Q.  14.  Was  there  not  upon  the  ground  at  that  day  a  dis- 
cussion, in  your  presence,  between  Peter  Gardner  and  S.  R, 
Throckmorton,  concerning  the  location  of  the  solar,  in  which 
discussion  you  took  a  part,  the  matter  having  been  referred 
to  you  by  them  ?  A.  There  was  a  great  deal  said  by  all 
parties  present,  while  on  the  ground  at  the  supposed  solar, 
but  I  think  Mr.  Throckmorton  was  not  present. 

Q.  15.  Do  you  not  remember  that  Mr.  Throckmorton, 
on  that  day,  stood  behind  a  pile  of  cordwood,  and,  with  a 
stick  or  rod,  pointed  out  to  you  and  to  the  other  persons  the 
direction  of  the  west  line  of  said  rancho,  from  the  solar 
north  to  the  Holon  ?  A.  Ko,  I  do  not;  someone  pointed 
out  the  line,  but  I  do  not  remember  who  it  was  ;  the  hue 
has  been  pointed  out  to  me  so  often,  by  different  persons 
who  pretended  to  know  the  line,  but  I  cannot  designate  any 
particular  person. 

Q.  16.  Have  you  had  at  any  time  before,  prior  or  subse- 
quent to  October,  1873,  or  at  that  time,  any  conversations 
with  Mr.  Throckmorton  with  reference  to  said  solar  or  the 
west  line  of  said  rancho  ?     A.     Yes,  at  several  times. 

Q.  18.  What  w^as  the  nature  of  the  conversations,  and 
the  opinion  expressed  by  Mr.  Throckmorton? 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  as  being  incompetent  to 
establish  any  boundary  of  this  rancho. 

Same  objection  by  Mr.  Throckmorton. 

A.  Mr.  Throckmorton  theorized  upon  the  subject,  and  I 
remember  that  he  contended  that  the  solar  was  not  at  the 
"Old  Mill ;"  that  Tracy's  survey  was  not  correct;  also  that 
he  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  west  boundary  of  the  Read 
Rancho  should  be  the  Arroyo  of  Corte  de  Madera  del  Pre- 
sidio, from  the  solar  to  its  head. 

Q.  19.  Examine  the  document  in  this  case  marked 
**No.  1 "  (383)  Petition  of  Samuel  R.  Throckmorton  in  the 
case  of  Rancho  Corte  de  Madera  del  Presidio,  herewith  of- 
fered in  evidence,  and  state  what  was  the  nature  and  char- 
acter of  the  affidavit  of  Geo.  F.  Allardt  therein  referred  to, 
the  said  affidavit  being  missing  from  the  records  of  this 
office.  Said  Petition  is  marked  filed  U.  S.  Sur.-Genl's 
Office,  Califorpia,  March  9th,  1869. 


92 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Shanklin,  as  irrelevant  and  immate- 
rial— inasmuch  as  the  affidavit  or  document  referred  to  could 
have  cut  no  fissure  in  determininor  the  correctness  of  the  final 
survey  of  the  Corte  Madera  Rancho,  said  affidavits  or  doc- 
uments having  been  made  several  years  prior  to  the  sur- 
vey and  not  offered  as  data  in  determining  any  of  the  lines 
of  the  survey,  and  from  the  further  reason  that  the  affidavit 
referred  to  does  not  appear  in  the  files  as  stated  in  the  ques- 
tion?    A.     I  do  not  remember  its  nature  or  contents. 

Q.  20.  Question  repeated.  This  petition,  marked  "  Ex. 
Throckmorton,"  J.  A.  R.  A.  I  do  not  remember  its  nature 
or  contents. 

Q.  21.  Examine  said  petition,  beginning  on  the  third 
page.  "  The  measurement  of  the  juridical  possession  com- 
menced at  the  solar,  the  sowing  ground  or  lot,  a  piece  of 
land  usually  cultivated  near  all  the  old  California  ranch 
houses,  and  within  convenient  distance.  In  this  particular 
case  it  was  located  in  the  best  place  that  could  have  been 
selected,  viz.,  near  the  house.  They  commenced  said 
measurement  from  the  solar,  which  faces  west,  and  on  the 
edge  of  the  forest  of  redwoods  called  "Corte  de  Madera  del 
Presidio."  They  commenced  the  measurement,  and  going 
from  south  to  north,  they  measured  to  an  arroyo  called  lio- 
lon.  An  examination  of  the  map  will  settle  this  question 
and  locate  the  solar  past  doubt.  It  should  not  escape  notice 
that  this  very  commencement  immediately  leaves  the  boun- 
dary of  the  ^aucelito  Rancho,  and  travels  away  from  it,  nor 
does  the  survey  and  measurement  of  the  juridical  possession 
ever  again  approach  it  any  nearer  until  the  return  to  the 
place  of  beginning."  Please  state  from  your  recollection  if 
the  substance  of  your  affidavit  was  not  in  conformity  with 
that  portion  of  Mr.  Throckmorton's  petition  just  read  to 
you  ;  and  further,  if  said  affidavit  did  not  substantially  indi- 
cate the  west  line  of  the  rancho  as  on  the  official  [lat,  and 
as  run  by  you  under  instructions  from  Surveyor-General  in 
June,  1874. 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Shanklin,  as  before. 

A.  I  do  not  remember  the  nature  or  contents  of  that  affi- 
davit.    I  do  not  know  what  it  referred  to. 

Q.  22.  Bo  you  recollect  that  about  October  8th,  1869, 
you  made,  at  the  request  of  Samuel  R.  Throckmorton,  a 
survey  and  plat  of  a  part  of  the  exterior  boundaries  of  the 
Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ?  A.  I  do  ;  I  made  it 
October  11th,  1869. 

Q.  23.     Was   said   survey  made  at  the  request  of  said 


93 

Throckmorton,  and  paid  for  by  him  ?  A.  The  survey  was 
made  under  instructions  from  the  U.  S.  SurV^eyor-General, 
dated  October  8th,  1869.  I  have  forgotten  whether  I  was 
paid  by  said  Throckmorton  or  the  United  States. 

Q.  24.  Who  requested  the  survey  ?  A.  I  don't  re- 
member. 

Q.  25,  Did  not  Mr.  Throckmorton  ask  you  to  make  the 
surve}^,  and  was  he  not  present  on  the  ground  with  you 
during  the  making  thereof;  and  present  when  the  plat  was 
made  ? 

Objectpd  to  by  Mr.  Shanklin  as  immaterial,  the  survey  in 
question  having  nothing  to  do  with  the  lines  of  the  official 
survey  so  far  as  this  contest  is  concerned. 

A.  He  was  present  on  the  ground ;  also,  Mr.  DefFebach, 
the  husband  of  one  of  the  Read  heirs.  He  was  not  present 
when  I  made  the  plat.  I  can't  say  whether  Mr.  Throck- 
morton requested  me  to  make  the  survey.  It  was  a  survey 
made  to  determine  a  line  between  Throckmorton  and 
DefFebach. 

Q.  26.  By  Deffebach,  you  mean  Inez  Read  Deifebach, 
one  of  the  heirs  of  the  late  Juan  Read?  A.  I  don't  know 
whether  he  or  she  owns  the  land. 

Q.  27.  At  what  point  did  you  commence  said  survey  ? 
A.  J^o  post  having  been  established  at  Station  175  of  the 
Mathewson  survey,  I  commenced  at  Station  172  of  the 
Matliewson  survey,  being  about  at  the  end  of  the  34th 
course  on  the  official  plat. 

Q.  28.  Did  you  proceed  as  far  as  Station  180  of  the 
Mathewson,  and  course  1  on  the  official  plat  ?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  29.  Did  you  proceed  to  make  said  survey  from  Post 
''  C.  M.  P.  180,"  oii  the  Mathewson  survey,  to  Post  C.  M. 
P.  181?     A.  I  did.  QY.  ALLARDT. 

Peter  Gardner  called  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  for 
the  pre-emption  claimants,  John  L  Gushing,  Francis  D. 
Barlow,  and  Thomas  Luke  Riley, 

Peter  Gardner,  being  first  duly  sworn  says:  My  name  is 
Peter  Gardner;  my  age,  42;  residence,  Marin  County; 
occupation,  farmer,  brickmaker  and  butcher. 

Q.  1.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  Rancho  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio,  and  with  the  surveys  of  said  rancho, 
represented  respectively  by  the  plat  of  R.  C.  Mathewson, 
Deputy  Surveyor,  in  evidence,  and  the  official  plat  of  1873 
iind  1874,  by  Ransom  and  Allardt,  Deputy  Surveyors  ?  A. 
Yes,  sir ;  I  am  well  acquainted  with  them. 


94 

Q.  2.  State  if  you  were  present  in  the  month  of  October, 
1873,  at  the  solar  represented  on  said  official  plat,  as  in  the 
testimony  of  Allardt,  as  Post  C.  M.  P.  180  ?  A.  I  was  present 
at  the  discussion  to  establish  the  solar  in  that  place. 

Q.  3.  Who  was  present  there  with  you  at  the  time  ?  A. 
Gr.  F.  Allardt — who  was  not  Deputy  Surveyor  at  that  time, 
Leander  Ransom,  Deputy  Surveyor  at  that  time,  James 
Cammings,  Doctor  Benj.  F.  Lyford,  T.  B.  Valentine,  S.  R. 
Throckmorton,  Ebenezer  Wormouth,  I  think  Leonard  Sto- 
rey, but  I  am  not  sure;  there  may  have  been  some  other 
persons,  but  those  persons,  with  the  exception  of  Storey,  I 
know  were  there. 

Q.  4.  How  did  Allardt  and  Ransom  reach  that  point, 
and  with  whom  did  they  come  ?  A.  I  don't  clearl3'  recol- 
lect with  whom  they  came;  they  did  not  all  come  at  the 
same  time. 

Q.  5.  Can  you  state  the  conversation  which  occurred 
there  between  Mr.  Throckmorton,  yourself,  Mr.  Allardt, 
and  the  others,  if  any  took  place  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Shanklin,  as  immaterial,  and  further, 
because  it  is  not  shown  by  the  preceding  questions  and  an- 
swers that  the  parties  directly  in  interest,  viz  :  the  heirs 
of  Read,  were  present  in  establishing  the  solar  or  any  of  the 
other  boundaries  of  the  ranch,  or  that  they  engaged  in  the 
discussion  referred  to  in  the  question. 

A.  I  can  state  the  substance  of  it ;  it  was  a  long,  sharp 
controversy;  Mr.  Allardt,  he  represented  that  he  was  there 
to  show  Ransom  where  he  had  fixed  the  solar  in  the  Ma- 
thewson  survey  bef  )ie;  the  others  united  with  Allardt  upon 
that  proposition,  because  it  was  the  compromise  solar  by  all 
the  pai'ties  represented  in  the  Read  rancho  ;  that  is  what 
they  claim  to  Ransom  ;  it  was  a  compromise  previously 
made  and  then  adhered  to  ;  I  then  objected  to  their  pro- 
ceedings, because  they  could  produce  no  proof,  neither  by 
the  records  nor  no  yjavo]  testimony,  and  that  it  was  entirely 
contradictory  to  either  the  records  or  the  parol  testimony  ; 
that  is  where  the  warm  discussion  took  place. 

Q.  6.  Who  purported  to  represent  the  heirs  of  John 
Read  on  that  occasion — if  you  know  ?  A.  I  hardly  know  ; 
they  were  all  against  me  on  the  proposition  ;  I  hardly  know 
who  they  were  representing. 

Q.  7.  Point  out  on  the  official  plat  the  solar  as  then 
claimed  by  S.  R.  Throckmorton  and  Thos.  B.  Valentine  and 
the  others — the  solar  which  they  call  the  compromise  solar. 

Mr.  Shanklin  objects  to  question,  as  immaterial  and  irrel- 
evant. 


95 

A.  It  was  a  post  marked  Post  "  C.  M.  P.  181 ;"  point  of 
beginning  as  on  the  official  plat. 

Q.  8.  Did  they  or  any  of  them  point  out  the  line  from 
said  solar  north;  and  if  so,  is  said  line  represented  in  the 
official  plat. 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Shanklin  as  immaterial,  and  as  not 
binding  either  upon  the  United  States  or  Read  heirs. 

A.  Mr.  Allardt  did;  he  pointed  the  line  as  marked  as 
the  western  line  of  the  survey  of  the  rancho,  on  the  official 
plat,  and  represented  to  Mr.  Ransom  that  it  was  a  due 
north  line. 

Q.  9.  Did  S.  R.  Throckmorton  or  any  person  present, 
except  yourself,  object  to  said  line  at  that  time  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Shanklin,  as  immaterial. 

A.     Nobody  but  myself  and  Mr.  Wormouth. 

Q.  10.  Did  Mr.  Throckmorton  agree  to  that  line  at  that 
time  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Shanklin,  unless  the  language  of  Mr. 
Throckmorton  in  connection  with  any  of  these  transactions 
is  given  specifically. 

A.  They  all  seemed  to  be  united  against  me  in  favor  of 
that  hne. 

Motion  made  by  Mr.  Shanklin  to  strike  out  the  last  an- 
swer as  not  responsive  to  the  question. 

Q.  11.  Had  you  any  interest  at  that,  time,  or  claim  of 
interest,  in  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  as  represented  by  the 
official  plat  ?  A.  I  claimed  lands  represented  on  the  plat, 
but  claim  they  were  not  properly  in  the  ranch. 

Cross- Examination  by  Mr.  Sharp, 

Q.  1.  If  at  the  time  of  this  alleged  compromise  solar  and 
line  referred  to  in  your  examination  in-chief  If  the  daugh- 
ters of  Juan  Read  were  married  then — one  the  wife  of  Dr. 
Lyford  and  the  other  the  wife  of  Mr.  Deffebach?  A.  I 
think  they  were.  Dr.  Lyford  w^as  there  himself  I  am  not 
sure  whether  Deffebach  was  there  or  not.  I  think  he  was, 
though  I  am  not  sure. 

Q.  2.  Were  either  of  the  ladies  referred  to  present  on 
that  occasion?  A.  One  of  the  ladies  came  out  but  not  at 
that  place — at  the  lower  end  of  the  line.  She  came  out  near 
the  house. 

Q.  3.  Who,  if  anybody,  represented  the  United  States 
on  that  occasion  ?     A.     I  do  not  recollect  of  anybody. 


96 

Cross- Examination  hy  Mr.  Shanklia, 

Q.  1.  The  occasion  you  refer  to,  was  there  any  lines  run  ? 
A.  No  lines  measured.  Mr.  Allardt  had  the  instruments; 
1  packed  them  around  myself,  and  I  know  they  were  there. 

Q.  2.  Please  give  us  the  day  of  the  week  and  the  date 
of  the  transaction  you  referred  to  in  your  last  answer.  A. 
I  do  not  exactly  remember  the  day  of  the  week  or  the  day 
of  the  month.  I  will  have  to  refer  to  my  memorandum,  and 
I  have  not  got  it  here. 

Q.  3.  Please  to  state  the  conversation  of  Mr.  Throck- 
morton on  the  occasion  that  you  refer  to,  if  you  can,  either 
as  to  the  establishment  of  the  solar  referred  to  by  you  as  the 
compromise  solar,  or  the  establishment  of  the  line  represent- 
ed on  the  official  map,  as  connecting  stations  "  C.  M.  P.  181  " 
and  post  marked  "P.  Q.  99  and  W.  R.  203."  A.  I  can't  ex- 
actly pick  out  the  individual.  I  took  the  whole  party  as 
one  ;  when  one  did  not  say  enough  the  other  helped  him 
out. 

Q.  4.  Can  you  then  swear  Mr.  Throckmorton  personally 
said  anything  on  that  occasion  as  to  whether  the  solar  re- 
ferred to  by  you  as  a  compromise  solar  was  correctly  located, 
or  that  the  line  referred  to  in  the  last  questioji  was  a  correct 
line  for  the  western  boundary  of  the  ranch  Corte  de  Ma- 
dera del  Presidio?  A.  I  don't  recollect  of  Mr.  Throck- 
morton stating  about  this  line  being  correct  (referring  to  the 
west  line  of  the  rancho  mentioned) ;  the  principal  discussion 
was  on  the  starting  point,  and  in  that  he  was  against  me. 

Q.  5.  What  did  you  claim  as  being  the  solar  ?  A.  The 
place  where  Read  lived  in  1835. 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Howard  as  not  being  cross-examina- 
tion. 

Q.  6.  Then  from  your  preceding  answer  (the  one  before 
the  last),  are  we  to  understand  that  Mr.  Throckmorton 
merely  opposed  the  idea  of  locating  the  solar  where  you 
thought  it  should  be,  without  expressing  any  ojunion  ow  his 
part  as  to  the  correctness  of  the  location  ot*  what  you  have 
named  the  "  compromise  solar  ?"  A.  I  think  not,  without 
expressing  an  opinion.  I  don't  ?recollect  that  he  said  any- 
thing as  to  the  establishment  of  that  particular  spot.  He 
took  it  as  a  proposition  against  me.  I  don't  recollect  which 
individual  used  it  then,  but  they  all  seemed  to  concur  in 
one  theory  against  me. 

Adjourned  till  half-past  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  Tuesday,  'Bow 
30th,  1875.  PETER  GARNER, 


97 

Thomas  B.  Valentine  recalled,  by  J.  B.  Howard,  attorney 
for  the  United  States  and  pre-emption  claimants. 

Q.  1.  Were  you  present,  in  October  3d,  1873,  with  Le- 
ander  Ransom,  Deputy  Surveyor,  and  Geo.  F.  Allardt,  at  or 
near  the  solar  or  Post  C.  M.  P.  181  (point  of  beginning)  as  on 
the  official  plat?  and,  if  so,  state  what  other  persons  were 
there  present  with  you  on  that  day,  and  what  was  the  pur- 
pose and  object  of  said  assemblage. 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Shanklin,  as  calling  for  an 
opinion  of  the  witness  as  to  the  motives  and  objects  of  other 
parties  than  himself,  as  being  present  on  that  occasion. 

Question  repeated,  and  witness  requested  to  state  only  the 
facts  known  to  himself. 

A.  Geo.  F.  Allardt,  Leander  Ransom,  and  S.  R.  Throck- 
morton, Benj.  F.  Lyford,  Peter  Gardner,  was  also  present. 

Q.  2.  Did  Ransom  or  Allardt  have  any  surveying  instru- 
ments on  the  ground  at  that  time  ?  A.  I  think  Mr.  Allardt 
did;  I  am  not  sure  whether  the  instrument  belonged  to  Mr. 
Allardt  or  Mr.  Ransom — but  there  was  an  instrument  there; 
I  mean  surveying  instruments;  I  don't  kuow^that  there  was 
anything  but  a  surveyor's  compass. 

Q.  3.  How  did  Mr.  Allardt  reach  the  grounds,  and  in 
who-e  company  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Shanklin,  as  immaterial, 

A.  I  think  he  w^as  driven  up  from  Saucelito  by  Mr, 
Throckmorton,  to  his  place. 

Motion  made  by  Mr.  Shanklin  to  sti^ike  out  the  preced- 
ing answer  as  indefinite. 

Q.  4.  State  the  facts  so  far  as  you  know  them.  A.  I  got 
^  pair  of  horses  at  Saucelito,  and  drove  up  to  the  Read  ran- 
cho,  taking  in  Mr.  Ransom  and  Dr,  Lyford;  that  I  am  sure 
of;  my  recollection  is,  that  Mr.  Throckmorton  took  his 
team  in  town  here,  took  Mr.  Allardt  to  the  boat,  crossed 
over,  and  then  drove  him  up  to  his  place  with  his  own  team. 

Q.  4.  What  was  the  object  of  the  assemblage  ?  A.  The 
object  was  to  have  pointed  out  to  Mr.  Ransom  the  starting 
point  in  the  new  survey,  and  finding  the  starting  point  of 
the  Mathew^son  survey, 

Q.  5.  Were  all  parties  present  in  agreement  upon  the 
point  and  line  suggested  then  and  there  by  Geo.  F.  Allardt, 
«,nd  now  representing  "Post  C.  M.  P.  181,"  on  the  official 
plat;  and,  if  not,  w^ho  were  the  persons  expressing  a  disa- 
greement thereto  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr,  Shanklin  on  the  ground  that  the 
qu3stioii  assumes  what  the  witness  has  not  testified  to,  viz,: 


98 

that  the  parties  were  not  there  to  estahlish  a  line  or  a  start- 
ing point  as  set  forth  in  the  last  answer  of  the  witness.  jS"or 
does  it  appear  from  the  testimony  of  the  witness,  nor  from 
the  testimony  of  Allardt,  that  any  west  or  other  line  was 
established  on  the  occasion  referred  to. 

A.  I  don't  think  it  was  a  question  of  line  there  with  us  ; 
it  was  a  question  of  starting  point  and  fixing  the  solar.  Mr. 
Peter  Gardner  claimed  that  we  should  start  at  a  place  lower 
down.  I  think  he  hunted  up  a  few  scattering  redwood 
stumps  by  that  point  and  the  Read  house,  which  he  con- 
tended was  the  redwood  forest  spoken  of  in  the  juridical 
possession. 

Q.  6.  At  what  time  did  the  party  break  up,  and  where 
did  they  go?  A.  We  came  down  as  far  as  the  Indian 
mound,  or  rancheria,  discussed  the  question  then  at  some 
length  ;  discussed  also  the  location  of  the  Point  Sausal  ; 
then,  upon  the  invitation  of  Mr.  Throckmorton,  several  of 
us  went  to  bis  house  and  got  lunch. 

Q.  7.  State  who  the  parties  were.  A.  Dr.  Lyford, 
Mr.  Allardt,  Col.  Ransom  and  myself  That  is  all  that  oc- 
curred on  that  occasion.  We  returned  to  San  Francisco  on 
3  p.  M.  boat,  October  3(J,  1873. 

Q.  8.  Did  you,  subsequently  to  October  3d,  1873,  and 
prior  to  the  5th  of  December,  1874,  have  any  further  con- 
versations with  Mr.  Throckmorton,  either  in  relation  to  said 
starting  point  or  to  the  re-survey  of  said  Rancho  Gorte  Ma- 
dera by  Ransom  and  Allardt,  as  represented  on  the  official 
plat  ;  and  if  so,  what  date,  and  the  nature  of  the  conversa- 
tion ?  A.  I  have  no  personal  recollection  now  lA  any  con- 
versation with  Mr.  Throckmorton.  When  I  came  back  I 
f  )und  that  they  had  not  run  the  lines  of  the  survey  on  the 
north  and  east,  and  on  the  south  as  well,  leaving  the  marsh 
lands  out,  as  I  supposed  they  were  to  be  run,  and  not  as  I 
construed  in  conformity  with  the  decision  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Interior.     Then  we  had  a  meeting. 

Q.  5.  Where  was  the  meeting  held  ?  A.  At  the  office 
of  the  U.  S.  Surveyor-General. 

Q.  6.     What  subject  did  you  there  discuss  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Shanklin  as  immaterial. 

A.  We  discussed  the  decision  of  the  Secretary  of  the  In- 
terior as  to  ho\v  the  ranch  should  be  surveyed,  and  what 
should  be  included. 

Q.  7.  What  were  the  special  objections  then  made  by 
each  of  the  several  parties  present  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Shanklin  as  immaterial  and  indefinite, 


99 

as  not  having  stated  who  the  parties  were  that  were  present 
and  engaged  in  the  discussion,  nor  when  it  occurred. 

A.  I  called  on  the  Surveyor-General  5th  of  December, 
but  that  was  not  the  time  we  had  the  discussion.  It  was  on 
the  24th  of  November,  1873.  There  were  present,  Sol.  A. 
Sharp,  Leander  Ransom,  R.  C.  Hopkins,  and  the  Surveyor- 
General  ;  B.  S.  Brooks  was  also  present,  and  the  decision  of 
the  Surveyor-General  was,  that  the  marsh  land  must  be 
taken  in. 

Q.  8.  Did  you,  at  any  time  during  the  period  mentioned, 
viz :  from  Oct.  3,  1873,  to  Dec.  5th,  1874,  meet  Mr.  S.  R. 
Throckmorton  in  the  TJ.  S.  Surveyor-General's  office  [ob- 
jected to  by  Mr.  Shanklin  as  immaterial  and  irrelevant], 
and  if  so,  did  your  conversation  have  reference  to  the  Ran- 
som or  Allardt  survey  ?  A.  I  have  no  special  recollection 
of  it  now.  I  am  under  the  impression  that  I  did.  I  must 
refer  to  my  memorandum  in  order  to  be  positive. 

Motion  made  by  Mr.  Shanklin  to  strike  out  the  preceding 
answer,  1st,  as  immaterial;  2d,  because  the  objections  of 
Mr.  Throckmorton  to  the  survey  in  question  is  a  matter  of 
record  in  this  office,  and  cannot  be  varied  by  parol  testi- 
mony. 

Cross- Uxaminalion  by  S.  L,  Gutter,  Esq, 

Q.  1.  In  answering  question  1,  what  book  did  you  refer 
to,  to  refresh  your  memory  ?  A.  A  diary  or  memorandum 
book  that  I  keep. 

Q.  2.  Will  you  please  read  from  it  verbatim  the  mem- 
orandum made  there  by  you,  on  October  3d,  1873,  concern- 
ing Mr.  Gardner's  presence  ?  A.  Gardner  followed  us 
wherever  we  went. 

Q.  3.  Did  you  have  the  espediente  or  any  part  of  it  with 
you — I  mean  your  party — during  the  discussion  of  the  point 
of  commencement  mentioned  in  your  answer  to  question  5  ? 
A.  I  think  we  only  had  a  traced  copy  of  the  diseno  from 
the  espediente. 

Q.  4.  Did  you  have  the  record  of  juridical  measurement 
or  any  papers  concerning  the  rancho  ?  It  so,  state  what 
they  were.  A.  I  think  we  had  a  copy  of  the  juridical 
measurement,  also  a  copy  of  the  decision  of  the  Land  Com- 
mission, with  the  traced  copy  of  the  diseno  before  spoken 
of  [  think  I  had  pamphlet  copy  of  the  "Decision  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior,  and  opinion  of  the  Assistant 
Attorney-General  in  the  case  of  the  Survey  of  the  Rancho 
'  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio.'     Heirs  of  Juan   Read,   con- 


100 

firmees.  Washington :  Government  Printer^s  Office ; 
1872." 

Q.  5.  Did  you  have  or  were  any  of  the  original  title 
papers  of  this  rancho,  or  copies  of  them  in  Spanish  upon  the 
ground  during  that  discussion?  A.  I  don't  recollect  that 
they  were. 

Q.  6.  Your  discussions  then  were  all  founded  upon  trans- 
lations ?     A.     I  think  they  were. 

Q.  7.     Do  you  understand   the  Spanish  language?     A* 

I  do  not.  I  rehed  upon  my  attorney  (B.  S.  Brooks)  for 
that; 

Q.  8.  How  far  from  the  house  (the  Read  house)  was  the 
point  of  commencement  pointed  out  by  your  party  on  that 
day,  and  in  what  direction  from  the  house?  A.  About 
40  chs  northwest,  as  marked  on  the  map. 

CrosS'JExamination  by  J.  W.  ShankUn. 

Q.  1.  What  time  on  the  3d  of  October,  1878,  did  you 
and  the  party  leave  San  Francisco,  to  gO  to  the  Rancho  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio  ?     A.     On  the  morning  of  that  day. 

Q.  2.  About  what  hour  ?  A.  I  think  the  first  morning 
boat  over  from  San  Francisco  to  Saucelito.  It  is  not  down 
in  my  memorandum  book,  but  I  think  it  was  \  of  nine  in 
the  morning. 

Q.  3.     What  time  did  you  arrive  at  the  ranch  ?    A.  About 

II  o'clock  that  day. 

Q.  4.  What  time  did  you  go  witb  Allardt  and  Ransom 
to  ascertain  the  location  of  the  solar  as  established  by  Math- 
ewson?  A.  Almost  inmediately  after  our  arrival  at  the 
rancho. 

Q.  5.  How  long  did  you  and  the  company  with  you,  re- 
main at  that  point?  A.  I  should  think  from  half  an  hour 
to  an  hour. 

Q.  6.  Was  Mr.  Throckmorton  on  the  ground  when  you 
arrived  there,  at  the  solar?  If  not,  how  long  after  you  arrived 
there  was  it  before  he  arrived  ?  A.  I  think  we  all  went 
to  the  place  together. 

Q.  7.  Did  not  Mr.  Throckmorton  go  to  his  house,  before 
he  went  to  the  solar?  A.  I  am  not  sure  whether  he  did 
or  not.     My  impression  is  he  did. 

Q.  8.  Did  you  and  your  company  not  proceed  directly 
to  the  solar,  while  Mr.  Throckmorton  went  to  his  house  ? 
A.  My  impression  is  that  we  left  our  horses  at  Mr.  Throck- 
morton's house,  and  then  walked  over  to  this  point  of  com- 
mencement, but  am  not  positively  certain  of  it. 


101 

Q.  9.  Did  Mr.  Throckmorton  remain  on  the  ground,  as 
i)ne  of  the  party,  during  the  time  that  you  remained  at  the 
solar?  A.  I  think  he  did  ;  and  walked  with  us  down  to 
the  rancheria,  and  from  there  we  went  to  his  house  to  lunch. 

Q.  10.  What  time  did  you  go  back,  you  and  your  com- 
pany ?     A.  We  went  back  on  the  3  p.  m.  boat  to  the  city. 

Q.  11.  In  your  former  testimony  in  this  case,  you  speak 
of  having  employed  Mr.  Ransom  to  make  a  survey  of  the 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  raiicho.  Did  you  pay  him,  for 
making  the  said  survey,  any  funds  besides  the  amount  3^0 u 
tfay  was  deposited  in  the  U.  S.  Surveyor-General's  office  f.>r 
making  said  survey  ?  A.  If  I  stated  in  my  former  testi- 
mony that  I  emph)yed  him,  I  wish  now  to  state  that  he  was 
appointed  by  the  Surveyor-General  to  make  the  survey,  and 
the  money  for  that  purpose  was  deposited  with  the  Surveyor- 
General,  as  is  usual  in  those  cases. 

Q.  12.  ^ovv  [)lease  to  answer  my  question,  as  to  whether 
you  paid  Mr.  Ransom  anything  besides  what  was  deposited 
in  this  otHce,  on  account  of  the  making  of  the  survey  of 
said  ranch o  ;  and  if  so,  how  much  ? 

J.  B.  Howard  objects  to  the  question,  as  irrelevant  and 
not  being  cross-examination ;  and  Mr.  V^alentine  objects 
a,nd  declines  to  answer  the  question  until  his  counsel,  B.  S, 
Broi)k.-,  is  present. 

Q.  13.  Then  you  decline  to  answer  the  question?  A.  I 
do,  for  the  reason  before  stated. 

Q.  14.  With  what  parties  was  the  agreement  made  by 
you,  of  furnishing  the  funds  to  surve/  this  ranch?  A. 
I  don't  know  of  any  agi^eement  made  by  me  with  anybody. 

Q.  15.  How  then  came  the  parties  whom  you  name  in 
your  former  examination  to  unite  witli  you  in  furnishing  the 
money  deposited  in  this  office  for  the  survey  of  the  ranch  ? 
A.  I  think  I  stated  th;  t  Mr.  Howard,  in  order  to  expedite 
the  survey,  proposed  to  pay  a  portion  of  the  expense  of 
making  it,  Mr.  R msom  claiming  the  amount  paid  into  the 
office  was  not  sutlicient  to  complete  the  survey. 

Q.  16.  What  interest  did  Mr.  Howard  have  or  repre- 
sent in  the  R.mcho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  for  which  he 
was  willing  to  pay  a  portion  to  expedite  the  survey  ?  A. 
Mr.  Howard  had  a  client  by  the  name  of  Riley,  who  w^as 
located  upon  some  land  which  he  claimed  would  be  west  of 
the  line  of  the  Rjad  rancho,  and  public  land,  who  was  de- 
sirous of  getting  a  title  to  his  land  from  the  United  States, 
^nd  no  interest  in  the  Read  ranch. 

Q.  17.     Was  Mr.  Howard  the  only  man  you  accepted 


102 

a^^sistance  from  in  obtaining^  money  to  make  tho  survey  ?'  A. 
He  was  the  only  man  outside  of  the  persons  claiming  under 
the  Read  title. 

Q.  18.  Was  Riley  the  only  man  that  Mr.  Howard 
represented  himself  as  willing  to  contribute  in  making  the 
survey  ?  A.  He  was  the  only  man  at  that  or  any  other 
time. 

Q.  19.  How  much  did  Mr.  Howard  contribute  towards 
miking  the  survey  ?     A.  I  don't  recollect  the  amount. 

Q.  20.  When  was  it  that  he  agreed  to  contribute  with  you 
towards  the  survey  ?  A.  He  did  not  agree  to  do  it ;  he 
proposed  to  do  it  and  I  accepted  his  proposition. 

Q..  21.  Please  to  refer  to  your  diary  and  refresh  your 
memory  from  it.  A.  I  have  not  my  diary  with  me  contain- 
ing that. 

Q.  22.  What  was  the  proposition  made  by  Mr.  Howard 
as  the  basis  or  consideration  for  his  aiding  towards  making 
the  survey,  which  proposition  you  say  you  accepted  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Howard,  on  the  ground  of  superfluity, 
the  witness  having  already  answered. 

A.  I  have  already  answered  that  it  was  to  expedite  the 
oV)taining  of  Riley's  title. 

Q.  23.     Then  in  accepting  Mr.  Howard's  proposition,  did 
you  agree  or  not  to  leave   Riley's  preemption   claim  out  of 
the  Rancho  '' Corte  Madera  del  Presidio?"     A.  I  did  not; 
I  did  not  m  ike  any  agreement  about  it. 

Q.  21.  Was  the  lime  that  this  proposition  made  by  How- 
ard the  first  inteiwicvv  you  had  with  him  concerning  the  Ri- 
ley c'aini  in  connec'ion  with  the  survey  of  the  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio  Rmcho?     A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  25.  Please  to  look  at  the  document  filed  in  this  case 
entitled,  "The  heirs  of  Jum  Read  vs.  the  United  States. 
Objections  to  survey  of  the  R-incho  Corte  Madera  del  Pre- 
sidio, by  B.  S.  Brooks,"  filed  May  1st,  1875,  and  state 
whether  said  document  was  filed  in  your  behalf  by  B.  S. 
Brooks,  your  attorney.     A.  It  so  appears. 

Q.  23.  The  first  objection  in  said  document  reads  as  fol- 
lows :  "  It  leaves  out,  and  does  not  include,  a  tract  of  land 
lying  between  the  w^estern  boundary  of  said  survey  and  the 
ranchos  Saucelito  and  Punta  de  Quentin,  or  the  Arroyo 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  and  the  Arroyo  Holon."  Please 
to  state  why  said  objection  was  included  in  your  list  of  ob- 
jections, when  you  had  accepted  from  Mr.  Howard,  on  be- 
half of  Riley,  money  for  the  survey  of  the  rancho,  so  as  to 
allow  Riley  his  pre-emption  claim  ? 


103 

J,  B.  Howard  objects — 

1st.'  Because  the  said  document  was  not  offered  or  re- 
ferred to  in  the  direct  examitiation  of  this  witness. 

2d.  Because  the  reasons  for  a  pleading  cannot  be  inquired 
into  in  this  manner. 

A.  The  document  itself  shows  all  the  reasons  for  objec- 
tions, and  is  not  offered  in  evidence. 

J.  W.  Shanklin  now  offers  in  evidence,  and  marks  said 
document  '•  Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  I^o.  1." 

Adjourned  till  10 J  o'clock  Thursday  morning,  Dec.  2d, 
1875. 


Thursday,  Dec.  2d,  1875. 

All  present. 

Continuation  of  the  examination  of  Mr.  Valentine  by  Mr. 
Shanklin. 

Q.  1.  On  the  margin  of  the  first  objection  referred  to  in 
last  question  appears  this  memorandum  :  "  1st  objection 
withdrawn.  B.  S.  Brooks.  Aug.  3,  1875."  Please  state 
the  cause  of  the  withdrawal  of  this  objection  by  your  coun- 
sel, B.  S.  Brooks. 

Objected  to  by  J.  B.  Howard,  because  it  appears  that  said 
document  was  filed  May  1st,  1875,  in  behalf  of  "  tbe  claim- 
ants," and  J.  W.  Shanklin,  Esq.,  appears  for  S.  B.  Throck- 
morton, who  claims,  as  does  the  witness,  an  interest  in  said 
rancho — and  the  question  is  therefore  incompetent. 

To  which  counsel  S.  R.  Throckmorton  replies  :  That  S. 
R.  Throckmorton  was  not  a  party  to  the  withdrawal  of  the 
first  objection  referred  to  in  the  question  ;  B.  S.  Brooks, 
who  made  the  w^ithdrawal,  having  expressly  stated  before 
the  U.  S.  Surveyor-General,  at  the  commencement  of  the 
hearing  of  this  case,  that  he  was  not  counsel  for  S.  R. 
Throckmorton,  and  his  name  was  erased  from  the  objection 
as  counsel  for  Mr.  Throckmorton  ;  such  being  the  case,  he 
could  not  make  the  withdrawal  referred  to  and  bind  S.  R. 
Throckmorton  tbereby  ;  because  of  this  state  of  facts  the 
question  is  asked  to  learn  the  motives  which  prompted  the 
withdrawal.  Further  answer  to  said  objection,  that  J.  B. 
Howard  does  not  appear  as  counsel  for  any  party  or  parties 
claiming  under  the  grant,  nor  for  any  parties  inside  of  the 
present  survey,  or  for  any  parties  who  have  filed  objections 
to  the  survey  in  question  ;  and  the  ruling  upon  the  objec- 
tion is  asked  by  the  Surveyor-General. 

Mr.  Howard  calls  attention  to  the  record  and  to  his  ap- 
pearance therein. 


104 

1st.  That  Mr.  Valentine  must  answer  the  qu3stion. 

2d.  That  the  right  of  Mr.  Howard  to  appear  here  lias  al- 
ready been  decided  by  the  U.  S.  Sur.-Gen'l,  as  the  record 
in  this  case  will  show. 

A.     I  refer  to  Mr.  Brooks  for  the  cause. 

Q.  2.  A  document  is  here  shown  witness,  signed  by  B. 
S.  Brooks  and  J.  B.  Howard,  bearing  stamp  of  the  U.  S. 
Sur.-Genl's  Office,  dated  November  30th,  1875,  and  ques- 
tion asked,  whether  the  matters  therein  referred  to  were 
known  to  you  at  the  time  of  making  said  document  ? 

J.  B.  Howard  objects,  unless  tne  document  is  Urst  offered 
as  an  exhibit. 

A.  I  refuse  to  answer  because  it  is  a  private  document 
and  not  properly  in  this  case. 

Document  is  here  offered  in  evidence,  marked  Ex.  S.  H. 

T.  :^ro.  2. 

Q.  3.  Question  repeated.  A.  I  object  to  it  because  it 
is  a  private  paper,  and  not  filed  by  any  person  of  whom  I 
have  knowledge. 

Q.  4.  Is  the  signature  of  B.  S,  Brooks  to  said  document 
genuine  ?     A.     It  seems  so  to  be. 

Q  5,  Was  B.  S.  Brooks  at  the  date  of  this  document 
attorney  for  you  as  one  of  ihe  claimants  of  the  Raneho  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio?  A.  Tlie  documents  in  the  ca^e 
show  for  themselves  whether  he  was  or  not. 

Q.  6.     Question  re[»eated.     A.     Yes. 

Q.  7.  Is  the  signature  of  J.  B.  Howard  to  said  document 
genuine?  A.  Yes,  I  think  it  is  the  genuine  signature  of 
Mr.  Howard. 

J.  B.  Howard  admits  that  he  signed  said  document  as  for 
the  parties  therein  represented  and  with  reference  to  the 
plat  Corte  Madera  attached  to  field  notes  to  the  final  survey 
of  the  raneho  "El  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio"  finally  con- 
firmed to  Heirs  of  John  Bead^  made  by  Leanaer  Ransom, 
deputy  surveyor  in  the  year  18^3,  and  offers  said  pl.it  as  un 
exhibit,  to  explain  said  agreement,  said  plat  marked  L.  R. 
Bep.  Sur.,  said  exhibit  beini?  simply  for  the  purpose  of  ex- 
plaining said  agreement  and  said  plat  being  similar  to  the 
official  plat. 

Q.  8.  When  did  you  first  see  said  Exhibit  "  IS.  R.  T. 
^o.  2  "  in  this  office  among  the  papers  of  this  case  ?  A. 
To-day. 

Document  is  now  shown  witness,  endorsed  Raneho  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio,  Marin  County.  Notice  that  claimants 
insist  on  their  objections  to  survey,  marked  with  stamp  o-f 


105 

U.  S.  Surveyor-General's  office,  August  2Ttb,  1875;  and 
question  asked  : 

Q.  9.  Are  you  acquainted  with  said  document  and  the 
matters  referred  to  tisercin  ?  A.  I  decline  to  answer,  un- 
less the  paper  is  offered  in  evidence. 

S.iid  exhibit  is  now  ottered  in  evidence,  and  marked  "  S. 
E.  T.,  No.  3." 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

J.  B.  Howard  moves  to  strike  out  the  paper,  on  the 
ground  that  it  is  not  competent  evidence  to  establish  any 
fact  at  issue  in  this  case,  and  is  uncertain  and  indefinite, 
and  that  it  does  not  appear  to  relate  to  any  paper  on  the  file, 
and  is  without  date  of  signature. 

Q.  10.  Is  the  signature  of  B.  S.  Brooks  genuine  ?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  11.  Was  Mr.  Brooks,  at  the  time  of  signing  and 
filing  said  exhibit  in  the  Surveyor-General's  office,  acting 
as  attorney  for  you,  as  one  of  the  claimants  of  the  Rancho 
Corte  Madura  del  Presidio  ?     A.  Yes^ 

Q.  12.  Please  to  state  the  nature  of  the  settlement  re- 
ferred to  in  Exhibit  ]^o.  3,  in  the  following  words  :  "  which 
stipulated  a  settlement  of  a  controversy  in  manner  entirely 
satisfactory  to  us."  A.  I  think  the  paper  in  the  case  will 
give  all  the  facts  about  it. 

Q.  13.  Said  Exhibit  3  further  states  in  the  last  paragraph 
thereof,  as  follows :  "  As  the  settlement  agreed  upon  by 
the  United  States  and  the  claimants  is  not  carried  into 
effect  on  behalf  of  my  clients  until  said  stipulation  is  wholly 
carried  into  eft'ect,  I  insist  upon  my  objections  as  originally 
filed,  and  I  now  withdraw  and  annul  the  before-mentioned 
withdrawal,  hereby  leaving  ray  said  objections  standing  and 
in  full  power,  as  originally  made."  Was  the  revocation  of 
the  withdrawal,  as  referred  to  in  said  quotation,  made  by 
Mr.  Brooks  with  your  knowledge  and  consent,  as  one  of  the 
claimants  in  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  J.  B.  Howard  as  leading,  the  ex- 
amination being  direct,  and  furthermore  as  being  incompe- 
tent in  determining  any  issue  in  the  case. 

A.   Yes,  it  was. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  now  call  upon  the  Surveyor-General  and 
demands  that  there  be  exhibited  to  them  any  stipulation 
that  was  entered  into  and  signed  by  B.  S.  Brooks  and 
counsel  of  the  United  States,  in  the  matter  of  the  final  sur- 
vey of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  and  which 
is  referred  to  in^  the  document  in  evidence   in  this   case, 


106 

marked  Ex.   S.  R,.  T.  iSTo.   3,   and  which  is  in  words  and 
figures  as  follows,  to  wit : 

To  James   T.  Slratton,  Esq.,  U.  S,  Surveyor- General  for  the 
State  of  California : 

On  the  3d  day  of  August,  1875,  a  stipulation  was  signed 
by  myself  and  counsel  of  the  United  States,  the  preemptiou- 
ers  and  claimants  in  the  matter  of  the  final  survey  of  the 
Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  which  stipulated  a  set- 
tlement of  the  controversy  in  a  mafi^ier  entirely  satisfactory 
to  us ;  and  supposing  that  settlement  would  be  carried  into 
effect  in  accordance  with  its  terms,  I,  as  a  part  of  that  settle- 
ment and  to  carry  it  into  effect,  withdrew  my  objections  to 
the  west  line  as  surveyed. 

As  the  settlement  agreed  upon  by  the  United  States  and 
the  claimants  is  not  carried  into  effect,  on  behalf  of  my  cli- 
ents, until  said  stipulation  is  wholly  carried  into  eff'ect,  I 
insist  upon  my  objections  as  originally  filed,  and  I  now 
withdraw  and  annul  the  before-mentioned  withdrawal, 
hereby  leaving  my  said  objections  standins^  and  in  full  force 
as  originally  made.  B.  S.  BROOKS, 

Attorney  for  Claimants. 

Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  Marin  County.  Notice 
that  claimants  insist  on  their  objections  to  survey. 

Ex.  "  S.  R.  T.  No.  3."  U.  S'.  Surveyor-General's  office, 
Aug.  27,  1875,  S.  F.,  Cal. 

Q.  14.  Document  signed  by  B.  S.  Brooks,  bearing  date 
San  Francisco,  Aug.  3d,  1875,  and  marked  with  a  stamp  of 
U.  S.  Surveyor-General's  office,  Aug.  3d,  1875 — here  shown 
witness.  Question  asked  :  Is  the  signature  of  B.  S.  Brooks, 
on  said  document,  genuine,  and  did  he  have  authority  to  ap- 
pear for  you  as  set  forth  in  said  document  ? 

Witness  declines  to  answer  the  question  until  said  docu- 
ment is  offered  as  an  Exhibit. 

Said  document  is  now  offered  and  marked  ''-  Ex.  S.  R.  T. 
No.  4,"  by  Mr.  Shanklin,  and  question  repeated. 

A.  His  signature  is  genuine,  and  he  had  authority  to 
appear  for  me. 

Q.  15.  It  appears  by  Exhibits  S.R.  T.,  Nos.  2  and  4,  that 
they  are  both  dated  Aug.  3d,  1875.  Do  these  two  Exhibits 
refer  to  the  same  subject  matter,  and  were  they  both  exe- 
cu  ed  with  your  knowledge  and  consent  ?  A.  The  docu- 
mei  ts  themselves  show  their  purport,  and  they  were  both 
mace  with  my  knowledge  and  consent. 


lOT 

Q.  16.  Is  the  settlement  referred  to  in  the  last  paragraph 
of  Ex.  3  the  same  in  all  respects  as  that  set  forth  in  Ex.  No. 
2,  which  Exhibit  No.  3  states  was  not  complied  with  and  for 
wliich  cause  No.  3  was  filed  [objected  to  by  Mr.  Howard,  as 
incompetent  and  immatei'ial]  ;  if  not,  state  wherein  the  stip- 
ulations differ  ?  A.  The  papers  show  for  themselves. 
-  Q.  17.  Is  that  your  full  answer  to  the  question  ?  A.  It 
is. 

Q.  18.  Wherein  were  the  stipulations  referred  to  in  Ex. 
No.  2  not  carried  out,  and  the  act  of  their  not  being  carried 
out  caused  the  revocation  by  your  attorney,  as  set  forth  in 
Exhibit  3?     A.  The  papers  show  fortliemselves. 

Q.  19.  Was,  or  was  not.  One  of  the  terms  of  a  stipula- 
tion referred  to  in  Ex.  No.  2,  that  a  final  survey  of  the  grant 
should  include,  for  your  benefit,  the  marsh  lying  on  the  NE, 
part  of  the  ranch  and  the  peninsular  island  on  SE.  corner, 
and  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Howard,  in  behalf  of  his  clients, 
that  you  would  leave  out  for  their  benefit  all  the  land  lying 
between  the  west  line  of  the  ranch,  as  laid  down  on  the 
ofiicial  map,  and  the  creek  known  as  the  Covte  Madera  del 
Presidio  on  the  west  and  the  Arroyo  Holon  on  the  north  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Howard  as  leading,  and  as 
suggesting  the  answer  ;  and  furthermore,  because  the  ex- 
hibits offered  speak  for  themselves,  and  the  plat  referred  to 
also  represents  the  lands  to  be  included  and  are  identical 
with  the  official  plat. 

A.  I  refer  to  the  papers  themselves  as  the  best  evidence. 

Q.  20.  What  particular  features  are  set  forth  in  Exhibit 
No.  2  which  were  not  carried  into  efi'ect,  and  'the  cause  of 
which  you,  through  your  attorney,  filed  Exhibit  No.  3  ?  A. 
I  think  the  papers  show  all  that  I  can  show  in  the  matter. 

Q.  21.  Was  there  any  other  agreement,  either  verbal  or 
in  writing,  than  what  is  set  forth  in  Exhibit  No.  2,  and  the 
refusal  to  carry  out  which,  caused  you,  through  your  attor- 
ney, to  file  Exhibit  No.  3,  re-ruling  the  withdrawal  of  the 
first  objection  in  Exhibit  No.  1  ?  A.  No  other  that  I  know 
of,  as  I  understand  it. 

Q.  22.  What  party  or  parties  failed  to  carry  out  the 
stipulations  set  forth  in  Exhibit  2,  which  caused  you  to  file 
Exhibit  No.  3  ?  A.  The  Exhibit  No.  3  shows  the  reasons 
for  filing  it. 

Question  repeated.     A.  I  make  the  same  answer. 

Q.  23.  Your  first  objection  in  Exhibit  No.  1,  which  was 
re-instated  by  Exhibit  No.  3,  reads  ae  follows  : 

"  It  leaves  out  and  does  not  include  the  tract  of  land 


108 

lying  between  the  western  boundary  of  said  survey  and  the 
ranchos  Saucelito  and  Ponta  de  San  Quentin  or  the  Arroyo 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  and  the  Arroyo  Holon."  Please 
state  your  reasons  as  a  claimant  in  behalf  of  the  heirs  of  Joan 
Read,  for  objecting  as  just  set  forth  in  the  same.  A.  The 
papers  themselves  state  the  reasons,  and  I  don't  think  I  am 
called  upon  to  give  my  own  reasons,  other  than  stated  in 
the  papers.  I  am  a  party  in  interest,  and  don't  propose  to 
develop  my  course  of  managing  the  case  for  the  benefit  of 
anybody  else. 

Q.  24.  If  your  first  objection,  in  Exhibit  ''  S.  R.  T.,  'No. 
1,"  was  made  in  good  faith,  and  you  believed  at  that  time 
that  the  survey  in  question  was  incorrect  in  leaving  out  the 
land  lying  be  , ween  the  Arroyo  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio 
and  the  Arroyo  Holon,  how  came  you  to  withdraw  said  ob- 
jections as  set  forth  in  Exhibit  S.  R.  T.,  No.  2  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  J.  B.  Howard,  for  the  United 
States  and  pre-emptors,  as  eliciting  the  opinion  of  his  wit- 
ness, and  as  incompetent  to  determine  any  issue. 

A.  The  papers  show  my  reasons. 

Q.  25.  If  the  withdrawal  of  said  objection,  a?  set  forth 
in  Exhibit  S.  R.  T.,  No.  2,  was  made  in  good  faith,  how 
came  you  to  revoke  said  withdrawal  as  set  forth  in  Exliibit 
No.  2,  and  again  claim,  as  a  part  of  the  Ranch  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio,  the  land  lying  between  the  Arroyo 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  and  the  Arroyo  Holon,  as  a  jDart 
of  said  rancho,  on  behalf  of  the  heirs  of  Juan  Read  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Howard  for  the  United  States 
and  Preemption  Claimants,  as  incompetent,  and  furthermore 
because  the  counsel  cannot  question  the  good  faith  of  his 
own  witness,  or  inquire  into  the  opinion  upon  which  the 
pleadings  in  this  case  are  founded  and  prepared. 

Counsel  for  S.  R.  Throckmorton  repUes  to  the  objection. 
That  the  statement  of  the  witness  in  testifying  in  behalf  of 
Throckmorton  is  incorrect,  but  is  legitimate  cross-examina- 
tion of  the  subject  matter  brought  out  by  Mr.  Howard  on 
direct  examination  wherein  is  elicited  the  fact  that  the  wit- 
ness stipulated  for  and  received  from  Mr.  Howard,  in  be- 
half of  his  clients,  money  ta  apply  in  the  survey  of  the  Ran- 
cho Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  and  we  have  a  right  to 
enquire  into  the  nature  and  character  of  all  stipulations^ 
made  by  witness  with  parties  foreign  to  the  grant  whereby 
the  interest  of  the  grantees  will  be  diminished  in  any  re- 
spect ?     A.     My  reasons  are  stated  in  the  papers  themselves-. 

J.  B.  Howard,  on  behalf  of  the  United  States  District  At- 


109 

torney,  offers  as  Exhibits,  with  the  official  plat  of  the  survey 
of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  made  by  R.  C.  Mathewson 
Dep.  Sur.  in  1858,  the  field  notes  of  said  survey  marked 
Ex.  Mathewson  No.  2,  and  the  certificate  of  approval  thereof 
•of  the  date  of  August  loth,  1860,  and  request  the  Surveyor- 
Oeneral  to  have  said  exhibits  copied  and  filed  in  this  case, 
to  be  forwarded  to  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land 
Office. 

Mulien  &  Hyde,  in  behalf  of  their  own  clients  and  in  the 
absence  of  the  U.  S.  Dist.  Att'y  Van  Dyke,  demand  to 
know  for  w^hat  purpose  the  said  Mathewson  survey  and  field 
notes  thereof,  are  ofiered  at  this  time,  and  by  J.  B.  Howard 
on  behalf  of  the  U.  S.  Dist.  Att'y,  and  demands  said  reasons 
be  spread  upon  this  record. 

Mr.  Howard  states  that  the  plat  itself  was  heretofore 
ofiered  by  Walter  Van  Dyke,  Esq.,  U.  S.  Dist.  Att'y,  as 
appears  upon  the  record,  pages  192  and  193,  and  that  J.  B. 
Howard  now  ofiers  the  field  notes  and  certificate  of  approval 
of  said  survey  of  August  15th,  1860.  Mr,  Howard  further 
states  that  he  is  authorized  generally  to  appear  for  the  United 
States  and  the  Dist.  Att'y  in  behalf  of  the  preemption  claim- 
ants Gushing,  Barlow  and  Riley,  and  is  further  specially 
authorized  by  the  Dist.  Att'y  to  appear  for  him  and  the 
United  States  for  the  purpose  of  restricting  the  survey  of  the 
Rancho  Gorte  Madera,  and  is  authorized  to  file  the  field 
•notes,  and  certificate  of  approval  of  the  Mathewson  survey, 
as  above  stated. 

Adjourned  till  J  past  10  o'clock  Monday  morning,  Decem- 
ber 6th,  1875. 


Monday,  December  6th,  1875, 

All  present. 

Examinaiwn  by  Mr.  Howard. 

Q.  1.  Mr.  Valentine,  state  if  it  appears  from  your  diary 
of  October  3d,  1873,  that  S.  R.  Throckmorton  was  present 
with  you  at  the  hjcation  of  the  solar  (as  ascertained  by  R. 
G.  Mathewson  in  1858)  by  Geo.  F.  Allardt  and  Leander 
Ransom,  Deputy  Surveyor.  A.  His  name  appears  as  being 
with  me  at  that  time. 

Q.  2.  Was  the  entry  made  at  that  time  ?  A.  The  entry 
in  the  diary  was  made  on  the  same  evening  or  the  next 
morning.     That  was  my  custom. 

Adjourned  till  Wednesday  mormng,^December  8th,  1875, 
at  10 'o'clock. 


110 

Wednesday  morning,  Dec.  8,  1875. 
All  parties  present. 

Cross-Exainination  by  J.  B.  Howard. 

Mr.  Allardt  recalled. 

Q.  1.  It  is  stated  in  the  evidence  of  Thos.  B.  Valentine 
and  Peter  Gardner,  that  Mr.  Throckmorton  was  present 
with  you,  Deputy  Ransom,  and  other  persons,  on  theRaneho 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  at  or  near  post  C.  M.  P.  181 
in  the  forenoon  of  October  3d,  A.  d.  1878.  It  is  f  a-ther  tes- 
tified to  by  Mr.  Valentine  that  you  came  to  that  place  in 
company  with  Mr.  Throckmorton,  Und  that  you  came  from 
the  Saucelito  boat  in  Mr.  Throckmorton's  carriage,  as  far 
as  Mr.  Throckmorton's  house,  and,  together  with  the  other 
persons,  walked  over  from  thence  to  the  solar,  and  that  you 
had  with  you  on  the  ground  surveying  instruments.  Please 
state  if  you  now  recollect  these  circumstances,  and  if  so  you 
may  correct  your  testimony  0!i  these  points  heretotore  given 
in  your  cross-examination  by  me.  A.  I  do  not  recollect  pos- 
itively who  was  present.  The  persons  named  may  have 
been  there,  but  I  have  forgotten.  I  think  we  rode  up  in 
Mr.  Throckmorton's  carriage  to  his  house,  but  I  am  not 
positive. 

Q.  2.  J.  13.  Howard  here  offers  in  evidence  *'PIat  and 
field  notes  of  part  of  boundary  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera 
del  Presidio,  re-surveyed  under  instructions  dated  October 
8,  1869,  by  G.  F.  Allardt,  Deputy  Surveyor,"  marked  "Ex. 
Solar  ISTo.  2;"  also  certitied  copy  of  the  instructions  to  G. 
F.  Allardt  for  re-surveying  a  part  of  the  line  as  above, 
marked  "  Ex.  Solar  No.  3,"  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the 
extent  of  the  boundaries  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio,  which  Mr.  Throckmorton  claimed  to  be  "  common 
to  the  two  ranchos,  Saucelito  and  Corte  Madera  del  Pre- 
sidio." Please  state  at  what  point  you  began  said  survey, 
and  what  point  you  closed  by  actual  measurement  on  the 
ground,  and  also  what  portion  of  said  line  you  calculated 
from  the  survey  of  R.  C.  Mathewson. 

Mr.  Throckmorton  objects  to  his  name  being  used  in 
marking  Exhibits  offered  by  Mr.  Howard.  It  is  ordered  by 
the  commissioner  that  some  other  name  than  Mr.  Throck- 
morton's be  substituted. 

J.  B.  Howard  marks  the  Exhibit  representing  the  petition 
of  Mr.  Throckmorton  to  the  Survevor-General,  dated  March 
3d,  1839,  locating  the  "solar"  as  "Exhibit  ^o.  1  "solar  ;" 


Ill 

and  the  plat  and  field  notes  of  part  of  the  houndaries  of 
said  rancho  under  instructions  of  Oct.  8th,  1869,  as  Exhibit 
No.  2  "solar;"  and  the  copy  of  said  instructions,  dated  Oct. 
8th,  1869,  marked  Exhibit  No.  3,  "solar;"  said  Exhibit  1 
having  been  offered  heretofore,  and  two  and  three  of  this 
date,  and  question  2  repeated. 

Counsel  for  Throckmorton  objects  to  the  foregoing  ques- 
tion— 

Ist.     Because  it  is  irrelevant. 

2d.  ^ecause  it  is  not  true,  as  stated  in  the  question,  that 
said  survey  was  made  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  the 
boundaries  of  the  grants  in  question,  but  to  ascertain  the 
location  of  a  Hue  that  had  been  run  in  a  previous  survey  of 
the  grant  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  line  of  parti- 
tion or  possession  between  adjacent  claimants. 

3d.  That  it  does  not  appear  from  the  document  marked 
"  Solar  No.  2,"  that  said  survey  was  ordered  as  a  part  of  the 
survey  of  the  grant  in  question,  or  for  the  purpose  of  deter- 
mining finally  any  line  of  said  grant  Corte  Madera  del  Pre- 
sidio. 

By  J.  B.  Howard — The  objection  of  Mr.  Shanklin,  taken 
in  connection  with  the  documents  themselves,  are  submitted 
and  the  question  not  pressed. 

Mr.  Shanklin  moves  to  strike  out  the  question  and  the  ex- 
hibits presented  as  a  part  of  the  question,  on  the  ground 
that  the  waiver  of  the  question,  the  objection  is  sustained, 
and  cannot  be  considered  in  the  case. 

Question  repeated,  and  the  witness  requested  to  answer. 

Mr.  Allardt  directed  by  the  commissioner  to  answer  the 
question,  and  the  motion  to  strike  out  is  refused. 

A.  I  commenced  the  survey  at  Mathewson  station,  No. 
175,  and  retraced  his  survey  of  said  rancho  to  Post  C.  M.  P. 
182 ;  no  part  of  my  survey  was  made  by  calculation  or  tri- 
angulation. 

Q.  3.  Did  you,  as  deputy  surveyor,  make  a  survey  in 
May  and  June,  1874,  of  the  lands  represented  on  the  official 
plat  as  "  public  land  V     A.  I  did. 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Shanklin  as  immaterial,  and  also,  be- 
cause no  subdivided  public  land  is  represented  on  the  map 
referred  to. 

Q.  4.  Did  you  at  said  date  make  a  survey  of  the  "  pub- 
lic lands,"  represented  as  lying  west  of  the  westerly  boun- 
dary line  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  as  said 
line  is  represented  on  the  official  plat  ?     A.  I  sectionized  a 


112 

• 

tract  of  land  lying  west  of  said  western  boundary  of  the 
rancbo,  as  delineated  on  the  official  plat. 

Q.  5.  Did  you,  as  Deputy  Surveyor,  run  the  said  line 
from  Post  C.  M.  P.  180  to  Redwood  Post  "P.  Q.  99  "  and  "  W 
K.  203,"  being  the  line  represented  as  the  westerly  line  of 
said  rancho  between  the  points  named,  and  as  an  easterly 
line  between  said  points  of  the  ''Public  Land"  adjacent  to 
said  rancho? 

Question  objected  to  by. Mr.  Shanklin  as  indefinite  as  to 
the  survey,  whether  in  subdividing  the  land  west  of  said 
line,  or  whether  he  run  said  line  as  a  boundary  of  the  grant 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio. 

A.     i  did  not  on  that  survey. 

Q.  6.  Did  you  at  any  time  ?  A.  In  June,  1874,  I  re- 
traced that  line,  as  Deputy-Surveyor. 

Q.  7.  In  what  case,  and  under  what  instructions  ?  A. 
Under  instructions  from  the  U.  S.  Surveyor-General.  I  re- 
ceived special  instructions  from  the  Surveyor-General  to  re- 
trace the  line. 

Q.  8.     For  what  purpose  ?     A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  9.     Were  the  instructions  in  writing  Y     A.  They  were. 

Q.  10.  Have  they  been  returned  by  you  to  this  office^ 
with  the  survey  so  made  ?     A.  J^o. 

The  witness  is 'requested  to  produce  said  instructions  at 
2  o'clock  this  afternoon. 

Mr.  Allardt  produces  the  original  letter  of  instructions, 
issued  May  28th,  1874,  by  James  T.  Stratton,  U.  S.  Sui-veyor- 
General  for  California,  for  the  "  Re-survey  of  the  western 
boundary  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,"  en- 
dorsed '^Survej^ed  June  2  and  3,  1874,  and  field  notes  re- 
turned July  1,  1874.  Allardt."  J.  B.  Howard  ofters  said 
letter  of  instructions  as  Exhibit,  and  files  same  in  evidence 
as  Exhibit  "  Solar  No.  4,"  a  copy  thereof  to  be  filed  in  the 
record,  and  the  original  returned  to  Mr.  Allardt. 

J.  B.  Howard  otters  in  evidence  the  plat  and  field  notes 
of  the  survey  of  *'  Pubhc  Lands,''  township  1  N.,  R.  6  W., 
M.  D.  Mer.,  approved  by  the  U.  S.  Survevor-General  Nov. 
27,  1874,  filed  with  the  Register  of  the  Land  Office  Dec.  5, 
1874,  and  withdrawn  therefrom  Aug.  13,  1875,  upon  a  tele- 
gram from  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  to 
the  Surveyor-General  of  California,  dated  Washington,  Aug, 
12,  1875.  Said  exhibit  marked  ''Public  Lands  Survey,'" 
T.  1  N.,  R.  6  W.  Copies  of  which  will  be  filed  on  the 
record. 


113 

Q.  11.  Does  the  plat  exhibit  '' Public  Lands,  T.  1.  K  S. 
6  W."  correctly  represent  a  survey  as  made  by  you,  in 
May  and  June,  1874  ? 

Counsel  for  Throckmorton  object^!.  1st,  on  account  of  ir- 
relevancy ;  2d,  because  a  subdivisional  survey  made  with- 
out legitimate  authority  within  the  exterior  boundaries  of*  a 
private  land  claim,  before  a  final  survey  and  approval  of  the 
ranch  which  includes  within  its  exterior  boundaries  such  so- 
called  public  land,  is  expressly  prohibited  by  the  instruc- 
tions of  the  Department  to  the  Surveyor-General — and  can- 
not be  resorted  to,  to  prove  the  final  location  of  any  of  the 
boundaries  of  the  grant. 

Commissioner  directs  Mr.  Allardt  to  answer  the  question, 
and  overrules  Mr.  Shanklin's  objection. 

A.  The  map  shows  lines  run  by  me,  but  I  do  not  know 
whether  they  are  correctly  delineated  or  not. 

Q.  12.  Examine  said  exhibit,  and  the  field  notes,  and 
state  whether  or  not  the  line  commencino^  at  ''Post  C.  M. 
P.  180  "  and  ending  at  Eedwood  Post  P^Q.  99  and  W.  II. 
203,  was  run  bv  you  as  Deputy  Surveyor,  under  instructions 
from  Surveyor-General  in  the  year  1874  ? 

Mullen  &  Hyde  objects,  as  not  calling  for  the  best  evidence. 

Counsel  for  Throckmorton  objects  to  any  testimony  repre- 
senting the  survey  of  any  public  land  within  the  exterior 
boundaries  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  as  in- 
dicated on  the  suspended  map  of  Tp.  1  l!T.,  R.  6  W.,  said 
map  having  been  ordered  withdrawn  from  the  Local  Land 
Office  by  order  of  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land 
Office,  because  the  western  or  other  boundaries  ot*  the 
Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  have  not  been  ofiicially 
determined. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  make  same  objection. 

The  objections  sustained.  The  field  notes  and  maps  are 
the  best  evidence. 

Cross- ExamiYiatlon  by  Mr.  Cutter. 

Q.  1.  On  page  241  of  this  testimony,  in  answering  ques- 
tion 8,  you  say  you  have  observed  that  the  washings 
from  the  hills  make  more  dry  land  on  the  marshes,  but  that 
the  action  of  the  waves  decrease  the  marshes.  Will  you 
state  whether  the  latter  part  of  that  proposition  applies  to 
the  east  or  west  side  of  the  bay,  or  both  ?  A.  It  applies 
more  especially  to  the  eastern  or  lee  shore  of  the  bay,  ex- 
posed to  the  prevailing  winds. 


114 

Q.  2.  Has  the  erosive  action  of  the  waters  of  the  bay 
affected  the  outer  edge  of  the  marshes  shown  on  the  plats 
of  this  Rancho  Corte  Madera  which  have  been  filed  in  this 
hearing,  especially  those  marshes  represented  on  the  official 
plat  as  lying  east  of  the  meanderings  between  Post  669  and 
Post  W.  R.  1,  on  said  official  plat  ?  A.  I  have  had  occa- 
sion to  compare  my  surveys  I  made  in  1870  with  that  of  the 
U.  S,  Coast  Survey,  made  about  15  years  prior  thereto,  and 
found  that  the  erosive  action  in  that  locality  had  been  incon- 
siderable, my  lines  of  survey  coinciding  very  nearly  with 
that  of  the  Coast  Survey. 

Q.  3.  Have  you  any  means  of  judging,  or  do  you  know 
how  much  the  western  boundary  of  the  marsh  land,  men- 
tioned in  the  last  question,  has  been  changed  by  the  wash- 
ings of  the  hills  since  July  8th,  1846  ?  A.  I  know  nothing 
of  the  extent  of  the  salt  marshes  in  that  locality,  from  my 
own  observation,  prior  to  1858. 

Q.  4.  Have  the  washings  from  the  hills,  alon^  the  last 
named  boundary,  changed  that  boundary  since  1858  ;  and 
if  yes,  how  much  ?  A.  They  nave  reduced  the  area  of  the 
salt  marsh,  to  what  extent  I  am  not  able  to  say. 

Q.  5.  Can  you  say  to  what  extent  they  have  changed 
that  boundary  m  any  one  or  more  places  thereof?  A.  I 
can't  from  memory  define  any  particular  locality  ;  but  I 
know  generally,  from  comparison  of  surveys  made  by  me 
in  1858  and  in  1870,  that  the  area  of  the  salt  mar^h^has  de- 
creased, 

Q.  6.  Can  you  state  the  decrease  at  any  point,  without 
fixing  the  spot?     A.  I  cannot. 

Q.  7.  At  what  date  did  you  run  the  meanders  along  the 
edge  of  the  dry  land,  between  Post  669  to  Post  W.  R.  1^ 
as  shown  on  the  official  plat  in  this  case — I  mean  the  mean- 
ders from  the  field  notes  of  which  this  plat  was  compiled  'f 

Mr.  Valentine  objects  to  all  the  questions  put  to  this-  wit- 
ness, as  not  being  cross-examination  and  irrelevant. 

A.  I  ran  the  meanders  from  post  669  to  post  W.  R.  1  in 
1870,  as  chief  engineer  of  the  Board  of  Tide  Land  Commis- 
sioners, created  by  act  of  Legislature. 

Q.  8.  Did  you  ever  run  those  meanders  more  th.in  once  , 
if  so,  when  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Valentine,  as  not  being  cross-examin- 
ation and  irrelevant. 

A.  I  ran  the  meanders  between  the  same  points  in  1858,. 
as  assistant  to  U.  S.  deputy  R.  C.  Mathewson,  but  not  with 
the  same  minuteness  and  accuracy  as  in  1870.- 


115 

Q.  9.  In  connection  with  what  survey  did  you  make 
^his  last-named  ninnino^  of  said  meanders  ?  A.  In  connec- 
tion with  the  State  Tide  Land  Survey. 

Q.  10.  In  connection  with  what  survey  did  you  run  these 
meanders  as  stated,  in  1858  ?  A.  As  assistant  to  Deputy 
Mathewson,  in  the  survey  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio. 

Q.  11.  What  was  the  purpose  of  the  survey  when  you 
run  the  meanders  aforesaid  in  1870?  A  To  ascertain  the 
«alt  marsh  and^tide  lands  belonging  to  the  State  of  Califor- 
nia. 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Valentine  as  not  cross-examination 
•and  irrelevant. 

Q.  12.  Have  you  examined  the  official  plat  in  connection 
^vith  your  field  notes  of  either  of  the  surveys  you  have  men- 
tioned ;  and  if  so,  can  you  state  whether  the  meanders  be- 
tween post  669  and  "W.  R.  1,  are  accurately  represented  on 
«aid  plat  and  according  to  your  field  notes  of  either  survey  ? 
A.  I  have  not  examined  the  meanders  critically,  but  I  am 
satisfied  that  they  are  correctly  platted  on  the  official  plat, 
from  the  survey  of  1870. 

Q.  13.  Do  I  understand  by  this  you  mean  a  survey  made 
t'ov  the  State  of  California  and  the  Tide  Land  Commission  ? 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  14.  Have  you  the  original  field  notes  of  that  survey, 
and  will  you  produce  them  ?  A.  No,  I  have  not,  in  my 
possession. 

Q.  15.  Witness  is  here  shown  a  book  marked  "  Tide 
Land  Survey.  Topographical  Party.  Meanders  Iso,  4,  in 
the  County  of  Marin,  and  asked :  Does  that  book  contain 
the  original  field  notes  of  those  meanders  ?     A.  It  does. 

Mr.  Cutter  here  ofters  in  evidence,  by  certified  copy,  a 
portion  of  said  book,  commencing  on  page  34  thereof,  and 
including  said  page  and  page  35,  and  the  corresponding 
•sketches  applying  to  that  part  of  the  field  notes. 

Q.  16.  You  have  testified  that  you  had  charge  of  the 
•^surveying  party  which  made  the  Mathewson  survey  of  the 
Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  also  the  Tide  Land  sur- 
veys, made  under  authority  of  the  State  of  California,  and 
that  you  have  compared  your  surveys  with  the  coast  survey 
tmade  somewhere  between  1852  and  1856.  'Now  state 
whether  you  found  any  special  disagreements  between  the 
two  surveys ;  and  if  so,  where  and  what  extent,  so  far  as  the 
Rancho  Corte  Madera  is  concerned.  A.  The  comparison 
was  made  several  years  ago.      I  cannot  m^ke  any  defimtj 


11^ 

statement  in  the  matter  without  a  careful  examination  and 
comparison  of  the  maps  of  the  three  surveys. 

Q.  17.  In  several  questions,  and  m  several  of  your  an- 
swers heretofore  given,  the  solar  is  assumed  as  a  fixed  and 
determined  spot.  State  whether  in  any  part  of  this  tes- 
timony given  by  you  you  mean,  or  mean  to  imply,  that  yoo 
have  decided  the  location  of  said  solar  yourself,  or  that  yoii 
consider  that  point  as  definitely  fixed  by  any  evidence  that 
you  have  received  in  connection  with  any  surveys,  recon- 
noissance  made  by  you,  or  at  any  other  time. 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Howard  as  eliciting  the  opinion  ot 
the  witness,  and  as  not  being  the  best  evidence,  the  tes- 
timony of  said  witness,  and  the  records  in  this  case  de- 
termining that  point. 

Mr.  Cutter  proposes  to  strike  out  the  objection,  on  the 
ground  that  the  witness  has  been  introduced  as  an  expert. 

A.  I  have  never  received  any  instructions  from  the  Sur- 
veyor-General to  establish  or  determine  any  of  the  boun- 
daries of  said  rancho  '*  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,"  but  have 
received  instructions  from  the  Surveyor-General  at  various 
times  to  re-survey  certain  boundaries  that  had  been  pre- 
viously established  or  reported  on  by  either  Deputies 
Mathewson  or  Ransom,  and  I  followed  their  lines  as  they 
had  surveyed  them.  I  have  never  been  ofiicially  called  upon 
to  establish  the  locality  of  the  solar.  In  speaking  of  it,  I 
have  spoken  of  it  as  established  by  Mathewson. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  now  ofier  in  evidence  a  certified  copy  of 
the  order  and  decree  dismissing  proceedings  in  the  District 
Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  District  of  California,  in 
the  case  of  the  Uidted  States  vs.  The  Heirs  of  John  Read, 
marked  Ex.  "A.  Mullen  and  Hyde." 

Objected  to  by  J.  B.  Howard,  for  the  United  States  At- 
torney, reserving  to  Mr.  Van  Dyke  to  state  his  grounds  of 
objection. 

Adjourned  till  half  past  ten  o'clock  Thursday  morning, 
Dec.  9th,  1875. 


Thursday  Morning,  December  9th. 
All  parties  present. 

Be-direct  Examination  by  B.  S,  Brooks,  Esq. 

Q.  1.  Look  at  the  diseno  in  the  expediente  IN'o.  27 ; 
state  whether  you  recognize  the  objects  delineated  thereon. 
A.  Yes,  I  do. 


117 

Q.  2.  How  is  that  map  in  regard  to  general  cofreetness  ? 
A.  It  is  very  roughly  drawn,  but  it  gives  a  good  idea  of  the 
geographical  features  of  the  country  and  relative  position 
of  objects.     It  seems  to  be  a  mere  eye  sketch. 

Q.  3.  Look  at  the  map  filed  herein,  being  a  traced  copy 
of  the  map  attached  to  and  forming  a  part  of  the  expediente, 
for  the  assigning  oP  the  common  lands  of  the  pueblo  of  San 
Kafael,  and  say  whether  you  recognize  the  objects  deUneat- 
■ed  thereon.     A.  I  do. 

Q.  4.  Look  at  the  map  filed  herein,  being  a  traced  copy 
■of  the  map  attached  to  the  deposition  of  Wra.  E.  Hartnell, 
in  case  'No.  104,  etc.;  state  if  you  recognize  the  objects  de- 
lineated thereon. 

Objected  to  by  J.  B.  Howard  as  not  being  the  original, 
nor  a  copy  thereof,  as  appears  from  inspection  of  the  original ; 
that  said  copy  was  certified  by  mistake  ;  and  furthermore 
because  no  such  grant  as  that  represented  by  said  map  ex- 
ists ;  that  the  said  raneho  of  Saucelito,  purporting  to  be 
represented  by  said  diseno,  is  shown  by  the  records  of  this 
ofiice  to  be  invalid;  and  that  no  grant  therefor  ever  issued 
during  the  existence  of  the  former  government  of  Mexico, 
^nd  no  juridical  possession  thereof  was  ever  given  by  an 
authorized  ofiicer  of  said  government;  and  furthermore, 
because  the  certificate  endorsed  on  the  original  map  at- 
tached to  the  said  deposition  is  not  attached  to  the  copy  ; 
and  by  said  certificate  it  is  shown  that  said  map  is  evidently 
incorrect ;  and  because  the  whole  record  pertaining  to  said 
"Saucelito  Eancho,"  so  called,  is  not  offered,  from  which 
it  w\\\  appear  that  sa'd  map  and  record  are  wholly  antedat- 
ed, fraudulent,  forged,  or  counterfeit,  and  have  no  validity 
whatever  ;  and  that  said  lands,  so  far  as  this  claim  is  con- 
cerned, are  the  property  of  the  United  States.  The  object 
of  this  objection  is  to  prevent  the  introduction  in  evidence 
of  an  invalid  plat  representing  two  ranches  as  joining  so  as 
•to  exclude  public  lands  claimed  by  Gushing,  Barlow  and 
Riley  as  preemptors,  viz  :  by  representing  a  Mexican  grant 
as  lying  immediately  west  of  and  adjoming  the  Raneho 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ;  whereas,  in  the  absence  of 
said  invalid  documents  the  claims  of  preemptors  may  be 
preserved,  and  the  rights  of  the  United  States  thereto  pro- 
tected. 

Counsel  for  Throckmorton  moves  to  expunge  from  the 
•record  the  objection  raised  by  Mr.  Howard  to  the  presenta- 
tion of  the  map  found  in  connection  with  the  expediente  of 
'th-e  Saucelito  Raneho  as  offered  by  Mr.  Brooks,  and  th^ 


•  118 

statement  made  by  Mr.  Howard  concerning  said  Ranelio, 
for  the  reason — 

1st.  That  it  is  an  attack  upon  the  record  of  this  office, 
and  upon  the  Surveyor-General  in  making  copies  of  said 
record. 

2d.  That  the  matter  is  foreign  to  the  investigation  of  the 
Eancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  and  libelous  as  to  the 
Rancho  Saucelito — -a  grant  which  has  been  confirmed  by 
the  Board  of  Land  Commissioners,  the  District  Court,  and 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  all  of  which  pro- 
ceedings are  a  matter  of  record  in  this  office;  and  in  sup- 
port of  the  offering  of  the  map  by  Mr.  Brooks,  counsel 
further  adds,  fh at  it  is  pertinent  and  necessary  for  the  de- 
termination of  the  boundaries  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera 
del  Presidio,  for  the  reason :  Juan  Read,  the  grantee  of  the 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  as  appears  from  his  expediente, 
first  petitioned  for  the  Saucehto  Rancho,  and  filed  in  connec- 
tion therewith  a  map,  which  shows  the  relative  position  of 
the  ranchos  Saucelito  and  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  to  each 
other;  it  therefore  becomes  necessary  toj examine  the  expe- 
diente and  diseno  of  the  Saucelito  to  see  whether  the  diseno 
of  said  rancho  corresponds  with  tlie  diseno  of  J.ian  Read 
for  the  Coite  Madera  del  Presidio  Rancho. 

Mr.  Howard  objects  to  the  motion  to  strike  out  on  the 
ground  that  it  appears  from  the  Spanish  archives,  and  from 
the  Expediente  J^o.  Ill  for  the  rancho  of  Saucelito  to  Wni. 
A.  Richardson,  that  no  grant,  or  concession,  or  order  for  a 
grant  or  concession,  ever  issued,  and  therefore  the  papers 
offered  are  necessarily  invalid  and  false. 

Mr.  Howard's  objections  are  overruled  by  the  commis- 
sioner, and  Mr.  Allardt  directed  to  answer  the  question. 
Upon  the  motion  to  expunge,  the  same  question  was  submit- 
ted to  the  Surveyor-General,  and  by  him  refused,  at  an  ear- 
lier date  of  this  hearing.  I  refuse  to  allow  the  motion  to 
strike  out. 

Counsel  for  Throckmorton  here  desires  to  put  in  the 
record  the  following  statement,  viz :  That  during  the  Sur- 
veyor-General's presence,  counsel  for  Throckmorton  moves 
to  expunge  from  the  record  a  similar  statement  made  by 
him  at  the  time  this  same  diseiio  w^as  previously  presented. 
The  Surveyor-General,  in  the  presence  of  the  parties  and 
witnesses  in  this  case,  sustained  the  motion  to  expunge  Mr. 
Howard's  remarks  from  the  record,  so  far  as  the}-  referred 
to  Saucelito  Rancho;  and  it  is,  therefore,  immaterial 
whether  the  record  now  shows  that  the  remarks  were 
expunged  according  to  his  ruling. 


119 

Mr.  Cutter  verifies  the  statement  of  Mr.  Shanklin,  counsel 
for  Throckmorton,  that  the  Survej'or-General,  in  presence  of 
the  parties  and  witnesses  in  this  case,  sustained  the  motion 
to  expunge,  as  stated  by  Mr.  Shanklin,  and  further  says, 
that  he,  Cutter,  at  that  time,  understood  the  ruling  to  be 
that  said  statement  was  expunged.  That  said  Cutter  has 
been  present  at  every  hearing  since  then,  and  has  never 
heard  any  ruling  of  the  Surveyor-General  to  the  contrary. 

Mr.  Howard  says  that  upon  a  motion  to  strike  out  certain 
maps,  such  as  the  above,  the  motion  was  sustained  by  Sur- 
veyor General,  to  which  Mr.  Howard  excepted,  and  appealed 
to  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  as  he  now 
does  in  this  instance,  and  in  all  others  wherein  any  plats 
filed  or  reference  made  to  the  so-called  Saucelito  Rancho  of 
William  A.  Richardson.     See  pages  200  and  201. 

Mr.  B.  S.  Brooks  states  that  his  recollection  is  in  accord 
with  that  of  Mr.  Cutter;  and  further,  that  in  his  opinion 
the  Surveyor-General  has  the  power,  and  ought  to  exclude 
entirely  from  his  records  matters  that  are  impertinent,  more 
especially  if  they  are  scandalous.  That  the  office  of  an  objec- 
tion is  simply  to  note  the  fact  of  the  objection  and  the  legal 
grounds  on  which  it  is  made,  and  not  to  make  assertions, 
whether  true  or  false,  and  such  assertion  ought  not  to 
appear  in  the  record. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  concur  in  the  remarks  made  by  Mr. 
Brooks,  as  also  Mr.  Cutter,  Mr.  Shanklin,  and  Mr.  Gardner 
in  person,  are  all  that  are  present. 

Question  4  repeated.     A.  I  do. 

G.  F.  ALLARDT. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  now  move  that  further  investigation  in 
this  case  be  adjourned  until  one  week  after  the  return  of  U. 
S.  Survej^or-General  to  CaUfornia,  for  the  reason  that  there 
is  no  officer  known  to  the  law,  now  present  in  the  office  of 
the  U.  S.  Surveyor-General,  before  whom  these  proceed- 
ings can  be  legally  heard  ;  and  because  there  is  no  person 
known  to  the  law  to  act  for  the  U.  S.  Surveyor-General  dur- 
ing his  absence  from  this  State.  That  said  Surveyor-Gen- 
eral is  now  absent  from  this  State,  and  the  necessity  for  his 
presence,  to  rule  upon  important  matters  that  have  arisen 
this  morning,  is  of  such  a  character  than  an  adjournment  is 
a  matter  of  legal  necessity ;  and  we  do  therefore  move  the 
commissioner  to  adjourn  the  case  as  requested. 

Mr.  Cutter  seconds  the  motion. 

Adjourned  till  2  o'clock. 


120 

Motian  of  Messrs.  Mullen  &  Hyde  granted. 
Case  continued  until  one  week  after  the  arrival  of  the  Sur- 
veyor-General at  San  Francisco. 

Mr.  Howard  and  Mr.  Sharp  objects  to  the  motion. 


Thursday,  Dec.  30,  1875. 

Pursuant  to  notice  duly  given  by  the  U.  S.  Surveyor-Gen- 
eral, J.  T.  Stratton,  the  case  is  called  at  10  o'clock  a.  m. 

The  attorneys  present  are  B.  S.  Brooks,  J.  B.  Howard, 
S.  L.  Cutter,  Peter  Gardner,  S.  R.  Throckmorton,  J.  B. 
Shanklin. 

By  mutual  consent  the  further  examination  is  continued 
until  Tuesday,  January  4th,  at  10  o'clock  a.  m. 


Tuesday,  January  4th,  1876,  at  10  a.  m. 
Case  called  ;  all  present. 

The  examination  of  G.  F.  Allardt  is  resumed. 
By  consent  of  counsel  the  case  is  continued  till  10|  a.  m. 
to-morrow. 


Wednesday,  January  5th,  1876,  at  11  a.  m^ 

Case  called.     All  present. 

G.  F.  Allardt  is  called  as  a  witness  for  S.  R.  Throckmorton. 

Q.  1.  State  your  name,  age,  residence  and  occupation  ? 
A.  Kame  G.  F.  Allardt;  age  42 ;  residence  San  Francisco y 
occupation,  civil  engineer  and  surveyor. 

Q.  2.  Have  you  had  any  relations  with  the  U.  S.  Sur- 
veys ?  if  so,  state  where  you  have  made  surveys  under 
the  United  States,  and  when  you  first  commenced  making 
said  surveys  ?  A.  I  commenced  in  1858  ;  I  was  assistant  to 
U.  S.  Deputy  Mathewson  in  surveying  ranehos  in  San  Mateo 
Co.,  Marin  Co.,  and  elsewhere.  By  ranehos  I  mean  Spanish 
grants  ;  and  since  then  as  U.  S.  Deputy  Surveyor  in  survey- 
ing grants  and  public  lands. 

Q.  3.  Have  you  had  any  experience  in  locatin 3^  Spanish 
grants  from  their  title  papers  and  descriptions  therein  ?  If 
so,  state  in  what  grants  ?  A.  In  surveying  the  grants  in 
Marin  Co.,  I  was  consulted  by  Deputy  Mathewson  and 
studied  the  original  papers  referring  to  such  grants — about 
thirty  grants  in  Marin  and  Sonoma  County,  and  three  or 
four  in  San  Mateo  Co.;  one  in  Monterey  Co. 

Ql.  4.     Map  is  here  shown  witness  marked  S.  B.  T.  No.  6^, 


121 

accompanying  the  objections  of  S.  R.  Throckmorton,  and 
tiled  May  26tli,  1875,  and  witness  is  asked  to  make  the  com- 
parison between  said  map  and  the  map  of  the  official  survey 
of  the  Hancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  made  by  Leander 
Ransom  and  G.  F.  Allardt,  and  the  official  township  plat  of 
Tp.  1  K,  R.  6  W.,  approved  by  Sur.-Genl.  Stratton,  Nov. 
27th,  1874.  And  state  whether  the  plat  here  shown  you 
represents  the  lands  of  the  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  and 
the  surveyed  lands  west  thereof,  as  exhibited  on  the  two 
official  maps  referred  to. 

Mr.  Howard  objects  to  the  question  and  Exhibits,  as  irrel- 
evant and  immaterial,  and  incompetent. 

A.  It  includes  all  the  land  of  said  official  map,  also 
the  lands  lying  west  thereof  shown  as  public  lands  on  map 
ofTp.  1  K,  R.  6  W.,M.  D.  M. 

Mr.  Throckmorton  offers  certified  copy  of  the  translation 
of  a  portion  of  the  expediente  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera 
del  Presidio,  marked  Ex.  S.  R.  T.  No.  7,  and  witness  is  asked 
to  read  a  description  of  the  boundaries  of  the  Rancho  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio  as  given  on  page  11  thereof. 

Mr.  Howard  objects  to  the  Exhibit  as  being  indefinite 
and  uncertain,  and  incompetent.  It  is  uncertain  because 
it  does  not  set  forth  the  juridical  possession  of  the  rancho  as 
given  by  the  Mexican  authorities,  and  is  not  certified  as  a 
true  co[)y  of  the  original. 

Q.  5.  What  is  stated  in  description  as  one  of  the  bound- 
aries of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio? 

Mr.  Howard  objects  to  the  Exhibit  as  incompetent.     The 
original  on  tile  in  the  proceedings  before  the  Land  Commis- 
sion, if  any  were  had,  const'tute  the  best  evidence. 
A.  The  Mission  of  San  Rafael. 

Q.  6.  Diseno  of  the  Mission  of  San  Rafael  is  here  shown 
witness  as  taken  from  the  archives,  and  marked  S.  R.  T., 
No.  8,  and  question  asked  whether  said  Exhibit  shows  the 
relation  existing  between  said  mission  lands  of  San  Rafael 
and  the  land  now  known  as  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio,  and  if  so,  state  what  that  relation  is  ?  A.  The 
tract  enclosed  by  a  brown  line  on  this  Exhibit  bounds 
the  lands  of  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  on  the 
north. 

J.  B.  Howard  objects  to  the  Exhibit,  as  being  incompe- 
tent. 

Q.  7.  Give  the  name  of  the  ranch  on  the  official  Map 
of  T.  1  N.,  R.  6  W.,  and  of  the  official  survey  of  the  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio,  that  occupies   the  same  relation  to 


122 

the  Eanclio  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  that  the  map  of  the 
Mission  of  San  Rafael,  Exhibit  ISTo.  8,  shows  is  sustained  to 
the  same  rancho.  A,  RanchoPuntade  San  Quentin  bounds 
the  Corte  Madera  on  the  north  in  a  similar  manner. 

Q.  8.  ]>)es  Exhibit  ISTo.  8  indicate  that  there  was  any 
public  land  Ivin^  between  the  south  boundary  of  the  Mis- 
sion of  San  Rafael  and  the  land  now  known  as  the  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Howard  as  incompetent,  irrelevant 
and  immateriah 

A,  Ex:hibit  Ko.  8  does  not  show  any  vacant  land  south  of 
the  mission  land  of  San  Rafael,  or  between  that  and  the 
Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  or  rather  the  peninsula 
representinir  that  rancho  marked  on  the  diserno  as  Tiburon^ 

Adjourned  until  2  o'clock. 


Examination  resumed. 

Q.  9.  Mr.  Throckmorton  ofiers  certified  copy  of  the 
translation  of  a  portion  of  the  f^xpediente  of  the  Rancha 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  marked  Exhibit  R.  S.  T.,  IN'o.  9^ 
and  witness  i&  asked  to  read  a  description  af  the  boundaries 
of  the  possession  of  Juan  Read,  as  given  in  the  testimony  of 
Jose  de  la  Cruz  Sanchez,  on  page  7 ;  Tomas  Gereniias,  on 
page  9  ;  Manuel  Sanchez,  on  page  II ;  and  state  whether 
the  description  given  by  said  witnesses,  as  to  the  boundary 
by  the  Mission  of  San  Rafael,  coiTesponds  wuth  the  lx>U!idary 
in  that  direc^tion,  as  given  in  Exhibit  No.  7,  which  you  have* 
read,  and  concerning  which  yo-u  have  testified. 

Mr.  Howard  objects  to  the  deposition  of  Jose  la  Cruz 
Sanchez,  as  being  incompetent,  for  the  reason  that  it  wa;* 
made  and  given  before  the  date  of  juridical  possession,  and 
before  said  Sanchez  had  gone  upon  the  land,  as  appears  in- 
said  affidavit,  and  because  it  is  not  the  best  evidence;  and 
the  said  Sanchez  is  still  living  in  the  vicinity  of  San  Fran- 
cisco, and  should  be  called  in  person  to  testify.  The  affi- 
davits of  the  other  witnesses  also  objected  to  as  inconi[>e' 
tent. 

Mr.  Cutter  objects  to  question,  as-  in  competent  ^  and  for 
this  reason:  The  record  of  juridical  measurement  and  pos- 
session fix  the  boundaries  according  to  the  decree  of  the 
Court  and  the  instructions  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,, 
under  which  the  present  survey  is  to  be  made. 

A.  In  the  testimony  of  Jose  de  la  Cruz  Sanchez  it  is- 
stated  that  the  rancho  is  bounded  on  the  north,  on  the  part- 


128 

of  the  town  of  San  Rafael,  by  the  arrojo  called  Holon  and 
the  forest  of  redwood  trees — called  also  Corte  de  Madera  de 
San  Pablo  ;  Tomas  Geremias  states  very  definitely  that  the 
Rancho  Corte  de  Madera  del  Presidio  is  bounded  on  the 
north  and  towards  the  pueblo  of  Sail  Rafael  by  an  arroyo 
called  Holon  and  a  forest  of  redwood  trees,  called  also  Corte 
Madera  de  San  Pablo. 

Manuel  Sanchez  states  that  the  boundary  on  the  north  of 
the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  towards  the  pueblo 
of  San  Rafael,  is  an  arroyo  called  Holon  and  a  forest  of  red- 
Wood  trees— which  is  also  called  Corte  Madera  de  San 
Pablo. 

The  boundaries  given  by  the  three  above  witnesses  cor- 
respond, in  my  j  udgraent,  with  the  boundaries  given  in  Ex- 
hibit S.  R.  T.  No.  7,  on  page  11,  but  they  are  more  specific 
<and  more  in  detail  in  giving  the  name  of  the  Arroyo  Holon 
and  the  forest  of  redwoods,  called  Corte  Madera  de  San  Pa- 
blo, which  are  designated  by  them  as  being  the  boundary 
between  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  and  the 
mission  of  San  Rafael. 

Q.  10.  Kow  please  examine  the  official  map  of  the  Ran- 
<jho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  as  surveyed  by  Ransom,  and 
•state  whether  said  map  represents  the  Arroyo  Holon  as  a 
northern  boundary  of  the  ranch;  and  if  not,  state  what  re- 
lation said  arroyo  as  a  boundary  is  made  to  sustain  to  the 
ranch  by  that  survey.  A.  The  Arroyo  Holon,  in  said  ofii- 
cial  map  and  survey,  does  not  bound  the  Rancho  Corte  del 
Presidio  on  the  north,  but  bounds  it  for  a  short  distance  only 
on  the  west,  say  for  a  distance  of  half  a  mile. 

Q.  11.  Kow  please  to  look  at  the  official  map  of  T,  1  N.^ 
R.  6  *  W.,  and  state  whether  the  Arroyo  Holon  is  repre- 
sented thereon  ;  and  if  so,  what  relation  it  sustains  as  a  boun- 
dary to  the  Pueblo  of  San  Rafael,  as  shown  on  Exhibit  8, 
-and  as  a  boundary  to  the  Rancho  Punta  de  San  Quentin,  as 
shown  on  the  official  map  of  1  ^.^  6  W.?  A.  The  Arroyo 
Holon  is  represented  on  the  map  of  T.  1  ^N".,  R.  6  W.,  and 
Ib.ms  part  of  the  southern  and  eastern  boundary  of  the 
Rancho  Punta  de  San  Quentin.  And  on  Exhibit  8  an  arroyo, 
which  seems  to- correspond  with  the  Arroyo  Holon,  forms  a 
portion  of  the  southern  boundary  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Rafael. 

Q.  12.  With  reference  to  the  same  two  maps,  said  arroyo 
Would  be  a  northern  boundary  of  what  tracts  ?  A.  On  the 
map  of  T.  1  K.,  R.  6  W.,  said  arroyo  forms  a  portion  of 

-  Ex.  Official  T.  Plat,  T.  1.  N.,  K.  6  W.     Ex.  S.  K.  T.  9|. 


124 

the  northern  boundary  of  the  land  surveyed  as  public  land^ 
And  in  the  Exhibit  ^-o.  8  it  would  be  a  portion  of  the 
northern  boundary  of  the  tract  marked  Tiburon,  and  cor- 
responding with  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio. 

Q.  13.  Putting,  together  the  official  map  of  the  Ransom 
survey  and  the  T'p  map  of  IK".,  R.  6  W.,  so  far  as  the  same 
indicate  the  location  of  the  Arroyo  Holon,  does  Ex.  N'o.  6 
correctly  rejDresent  the  same  arroyo  ?  A.  Ex.  l^o.  6  rep- 
resents the  Arroyo  Holon  in  the  same  location  as  on  the 
official  map  and  the  T'p  plat,  as  near  a&  I  can  judge  by  in- 
spection. 

Q.  14.  Are  you  the  same  G.  F.  Allardt  named  on  the 
official  T'p  plat  of  1  IN".,  R.  6  W.,  as  having  surveyed  the 
subdivision  lines,  colored  red,  including  the  land  lying  im- 
mediately south  of  the  Arroyo  Holon,  as  represented  on  said 
map?     A.  I  am. 

Q.  15.  Witness  is  now  shown  Exhibit  S.  R.  T.  No.  9, 
and  is  asked  to  read  the  description  of  the  boundaries  of  the 
Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  as  set  forth  in  said  Ex- 
hibit, commencing^  on  page  12,  fifth  line  from  the  bottom 
and  extending  and  including  sixth  line  of  page  44.  Please 
to  show,  if  you  can,  on  Ex.  I^o.  6,  or  on  the  official  map  of 
the  Ransom  survey  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Pre- 
sidio, or  on  the  T'p  map  1  N".,  6  W.,  the  place  described 
therein  as  the  remains  of  the  rancheria  called  Animas?  A. 
The  rancheria  called  Animas  is  not  shown  on  said  T'p  map, 
nor  on  said  official  map,  but  it  is  now  shown  on  Ex.  6  by 
letter  A,  in  a  circle,  near  the  house  of  Read. 

Q.  16.  The  description  referred  to  on  page  13  in  con- 
nection with  the  rancheria,  which  you  have  just  described, 
speaks  of  a  Httle  brook,  with  a  willow  thicket.  Do  you  know 
of  any  such  brook  running  near  the  rancheria  ?  If  so,  how 
far  and  in  what  direction  does  that  little  brook  extend  ?  A. 
I  know  of  such  a  brook  with  a  willow  thicket,  and  it  passes 
Slid  rancheria  close  to  its  south  side,  and  takes  its  rise  near 
the  peak  of  Tamalpais,  and  runs  south-easterly,  passing  said 
rancheria  on  the  southerly  side,  and  empties  into  a  slough, 
connecting  with  Richardson's  Bay. 

Q.  17.  Please  to  state  whether  said  brook  is  laid  down 
on  Ex.  6,  and  if  so,  state  how  it  is  described  thereon,  and 
please  to  mark  its  source  as  you  have  described  it  ?  A.  The 
brook  is  laid  down  on  Ex.  6,  and  designated  as  the  "Arroyo 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,"  and  its  source  is  on  the  eastern 
slope  of  the  Tamalpais  Mountain. 

Q.  18.     How  far  is  that  source  from  the  source  of  the  Ar- 


125 

rojo  Hoi  on  ?  A.  From  my  knowledge  of  the  ground,  I 
should  say  that  the  sources  of  said  arroyos  were  not  over  a 
quarter  of  a  mile  apart,  having  surveyed  both  of  them. 

Q.  19.  Do  they  not  both  rise  on  the  eastern  slope  of  the 
Tamalpais  Mountain  ?  A.  Yes,  on  the  eastern  and  north- 
eastern slope. 

Q.  20.  Please  to  examine  the  official  map  of  T.  1  IS".,  R. 
6  W.,  and  state  if  the  same  little  brook  is  not  represented 
thereon  in  the  same  relation  to  the  Arroyo  Holon  that  you 
have  just  described  ?  A.  It  is ;  but  it  is  not  shown  all  the 
w^ay  to  its  source,  and  designated  as  the  "Arroyo  Oorte  Ma- 
dera del  Presidio." 

Q.  21.  Please  to  designate  on  Ex.  6  the  nearest  point 
where  those  streams  are  together  at  their  sources  ?  A.  I 
xiesignate  it  by  a  letter  B,  in  a  circle. 

Adjourned  until  10.30  o'clock  a.  m,  Thursday. 


Thursday,  Jan.  6th,  '76,  at  10.30  A.  m.,  case  called.  All 
present. 

Q.  1.  Please  to  examine  Ex.  S.  E,  T.  No.  8,  and  state 
whether  you  find  represented  thereon  an  arroyo  correspond- 
ing in  location  with  a  stream  which  you  have  described  on 
the  official  T'p  plat  1  N.,  R.  6  W.,  and  Ex.  S.  R.  T.  I^o.  6, 
as  the  Arroyo  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ;  and  if  so,  state 
how  it  lies  on  said  map  with  reference  to  the  peninsula 
marked  "  Tiburon." 

Mr.  Howard  objects  to  the  question  as  irrelevant,  and 
because  no  such  arroyo  or  boundary  is  mentioned  in  the 
record  of  juridical  possession  of  said  rancho. 

A.  I  find  such  an  arroyo,  but  it  is  not  named  on  Exhibit 
S.  It  is  located  at  the  head  of  the  bay,  lying  westerly  of 
the  peninsula  marked  Tiburon — I  mean  the  bay  between 
the  peninsula  marked  Tiburon  and  the  peninsula  marked 
Saucelito. 

Q.  2.  Is  said  arroyo  represented  on  Exhibit  8.  R.  T.., 
No.  8,  as  heading  near  the  Tamalpais  mountain,  or  near  the 
mountain,  as  represented  on  the  other  maps  last  referred 
to? 

Objected  to  by  Mr,  Howard  as  irrelevant  and  uncertain. 

A.  It  is  represented  as  heading  in  a  range  of  mountains 
which  I  judge  to  be  the  Tamalpais  range,  although  the 
sketch  is  rather  imperfect,  and  no  name  shown  on  said 
range  in  the  sketch  of  Exhibit  8. 

Q.  3.  Do  you  know  of  any  corte  madera  lying  to  the 
west  of  the  Ran^ho  Corte  Madera,  and  if  so,  where  is  it 


126 

situated  with  reference  to  the  aiTQjo  which  yon  have  been 
describing  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Howard  as  incompetent,  irrelevant 
and  immaterial. 

A.  There  is  a  corte  madera  or  forest  of  redwoods  on  that 
arroyo. 

Q.  4.  N"ow,  please  to  look  at  the  official  map  of  the 
Corte  Madera  Rancho,  and  state  whether  the  corte  madera 
that  you  have  just  described  as  lying  on  the  arroyo,  is  found 
within  the  boundaries  of  this  official  survey  ?  A.  It  is  not; 
but  lies  to  the  west  of  the  boundary. 

Q.  5.  Kow,  look  at  the  official  map  of  T.  1  N.,  R.  6 
W.,  and  state  whereabouts  said  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio 
would  be  on  this  map.  A.  It  would  commence  on  the  Ar- 
royo Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  near  its  intersection  with 
the  hue  between  sections  28  and  29,  and  would  extend  up 
said  arroyo  for  its  entire  length,  there  being  redwoods  all 
the  way  up  said  arroyo. 

Q.  6.  JJo  you  kiutw  of  any  forest  of  redwoods  known  by 
the  name  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  lying  within  the 
official  survey  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ? 
A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  7.  Do  you  know  of  a  corte  madera  called  "  Corte 
Madera  de  San  Pablo,"  and  if  so,  where  is  that  situated 
with  reference  to  the  official  survey  of  the  Rancho  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio  ?  A.  It  is  situated  on  the  Arroyo 
Holon,  and  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  Corte  Madera  is 
not  included  in  the  official  survey.  There  are  some  scatter- 
ing redwood  trees  on  the  Arroyo  Holon,  where  said  arroyo 
bounds  the  rancho;  but  the  dense  part  of  the  redwood 
forest  is  outside  and  west  of  the  boundary  of  the  rancho. 

Q.  8.  Please  to  mark,  with  lead  pencil  lines,  on  Ex.  S. 
R.  T.  i^o.  6  the  location  of  the  Corte  Madera  de  San  Pablo. 
A.  I  have  marked  it  with  pencil,  to  the  best  of  recollection, 
with  scallop  lines  north  and  south  of  the  Holon. 

Q.  9.  Where  would  the  Corte  Madera  de  San  Pablo  be 
with  reference  to  the  lands  surveyed  as  public  land  T.  1  N., 
R.  6  W,r  A.  It  would  form  the  northern  boundary  of  these 
public  lands. 

Q.  10.  The  decree  of  the  District  Court,  IN'o.  83,  dated 
Feb.  11th,  1856,  is  here  shown  witness,  and  offered  by  cer- 
tified copy  as  Ex.  S.  R.  T.  No.  10,  and  he  is  asked  to  read 
the  description  therein  contained,  so  far  as  the  same  relates 
to  any  of  the  boundaries  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio.      A.    The  language  relating  to  the  Corte  Madera 


137 

del  Presidio  is  as  follows :  "  On  the  north-east  by  the  whole 
coarse  of  the  principal  Arroyo  de  Corte  Madera  del  Pre- 
sidio, which  empties  into  said  bay,  and  bordering  on  Don 
Juan  Read." 

Q.  11.  From  the  Exhibits  marked  S.  R.  T.,  to  which 
yoar  attention  has  been  called,  and  the  descriptions  con- 
tained therein,  relating  to  the  boundaries  of  the  Rancho 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  and  your  knowledge  of  those 
locations  on  the  ground,  where  would  you,  as  a  surveyor, 
accustomed  as  you  have  been  to  locate  Spanish  grants  by 
the  description  and  papers  thereof,  locate  the  western  and 
northern  boundaries  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Pre- 
sidio ?  I  ask  this  question  without  reference  to  the  juridical 
measurements.  A.  I  would  locate  the  western  boundary  of 
said  rancho  as  the  Arroyo  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  from 
the  point  where  said  arroyo  is  nearest  to  the  Arroyo  Holon, 
and,  extending  dovvn  said  Arroyo  C  )rte  Madera,  down  to 
the  point  where  it  enters  Richardson's  Bay.  And  I  would 
locate  the  northern  boundary  as  the  Arroyo  Corte  Madera 
de  San  Pablo  or  Holon,  beginning  at  the  point  on  said  ar- 
royo, where  it  approaches  nearest  to  the  Arroyo  Corte  Ma- 
dera del  Presidio,  and  following  down  said  Arroyo  Holon, 
either  to  where  it  enters  the  salt  marsh,  or  perhaps  still 
further  down,  to  where  the  same  enters  the  Bay  of  San 
Francisco. 

Q.  12.  Is  any  portion  of  the  land  which  you  hive  stated 
you  would  include  within  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio  omitted  from  the  official  survey  thereof?  And  if 
so,  state  on  what  Exhibit  or  maps  the  omitted  part  can  be 
found.  A.  Yes,  there  is.  The  land  omitted  is  shown  in 
the  official  map  as  lying  west  of  the  western  boundary  of  the 
rancho  on  said  map,  and  is  marked  Public  Land.  It  is  also 
shown  on  Tp.  Map  1  N.  12,  6  W.,  as  v.rt  of  Sees.  16,  17, 
20,  21,  28  and  29  and  lies  west  of  the  land  marked  ''  Lot 
No.  40."  Part  of  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  and 
easterly  of  land  marked  "  lot  No.  41  "  part  of  Rancho  Sau- 
celito,  and  northerly  of  land  marked  "Lot  No.  38  "  part  of 
Rancho  Punta  de  San  Quentin,  being  all  the  land  bounded  by 
said  lots  Nos.  38,  40  and  41  and  shown  as  public  land  on  said 
map. 

Counsel  for  Throckmorton  now  offers,  by  certified  copy, 
deed  from  John  J.  Read  to  Hugh  A.  Boyle,  dated  May  11th, 
1869,  marked  S.  R.  T.  No.^lL  Also  deed  from  Ylaria 
Read  to  Hugh  A.  Boyle,  dated  Mav  24th,  1869,  marked  Ex. 
S.  R.  T.  No.  12. 


128 

Also  deed  from  Thomas  B.  Deffebach  and  Inez  Read 
Deffebach,  Hugh  A.  Boyle  and  Maria  Garcia  de  Boyle  his 
wife,  Thomas  B.  Valentine,  and  H.  C.  Newhall  to  Julius  C, 
McCeney,  dated  February  1st,  1871,  and  marked  S.  R.  T. 
No.  13. 

Also  deed  from  Julius  C.  McCeney  to  S.  R.  Throckmor- 
ton, dated  January  19tb,  1875,  marked  i^.x.  S.  R.  T.  Ko.  14- 

Also  plat  and  field  notes  by  copy,  of  the  survey  made  by 
G.  F.  Allardt  for  tract  of  land  deeded  from  T.  B.  Deffebach 
et  al,  to  Julius  C.  McCeney,  marked  S.  R.  T.  15. 

Q.  13.  Witness  is  now  asked  to  examine  these  different 
conveyances,  and  state  whether  the  land  described  in  the 
field  notes  and  delineated  on  the  plat,  in  Exhibit  S.  R.  T., 
No.  15,  would  be  contained  within  the  tract  which  you 
described  as  being  bounded  on  the  otticial  map  of  1  N.,  t> 
W.,  by  lots  38,  40  and  41,  and  which  you  say  you  would 
include  within  the  boundaries  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera 
del  Piesidio,  as  mentioned  in  your  answer  to  last  preceding 
question.  A.  I  have  examined  the  conveyances  marked 
Exhibits  S.  R.  T.,  Nos.  13,  14  and  15,  and  find  that  the 
Imd  conveyed  by  deeds  marked  Exhibits  S.  R-  T.,  13  and 
14,  and  containing  80  24-lOOths  acres,  is  the  same  land  as 
described  in  the  field  notes  and  plat  in  Exhibits  S.  R.  T., 
No.  15.  Said  tract  of  land  is  included  within  the  bound- 
aries of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  as  defined 
by  me  in  the  preceding  answer.  About  seven-eighths  of 
said  tract  is  contained  in  the  lands  shown  as  public  lands  on 
the  Tp.  map  1  N.,  6  W.  ;  and  the  balance,  or  one-eighth  of 
said  tract  is  contained  within  the  ofiBcialplat  of  the  Rancho 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  as  surveyed  by  Deputy  Ransom, 
and  the  land  described  in  Exhibits  11  and  12  is  a  tract  not 
included  in  Mathewson's  survey  of  said  rancho,  but  does 
include  the  tract  described  as  bounded  by  lots  Nos.  38,  40 
and  41. 

Adjourned  until  lOJ  o'clock  a.  m.  Tuesday,  Januarv  llth^ 
1876. 


TuE3i>AY,  January  11,  1876. 
Examination  resumed. 
All  present. 

G.  F.  Allardt' s  Examination  Resumed.- 

J.  B.  Howard  objects  to  the  Exhibit  S.  R.  T.,  No.  10,. 
offered  in   behalf  of  Mr.  Throckmorton,  on  page  364  and 


129 

365  of  the  record,  because  it  is  immaterial,  irrelevant  and 
incompetent.  2d.  Because  it  does  not  relate  to  the  jurid- 
ical possession  of  the  Corte  Madera  Rancho.  3d.  Because 
it  is  a  copy  of  an  interlocutory  decree,  not  final  in  any  sense. 
4th.  Because  it  has  lately  been  ascertained  that  said  de- 
cree— 

Here  objection  is  made  by  Mr.  Shanklin  to  Mr.  Howard's 
objection  being  reduced  to  writing,  and  the  Surveyor- 
'General  is  asked  to  exclude  the  objection  from  the  record. 

The  Surveyor-General  rules  that  the  objection  of  Mr. 
Shanklin  to  the  attack  upon  the  title  of  the  Saucelito 
Kancho,  by  Mr.  Howard,  is  well  taken ;  that  this  is  not  the 
proper  place  to  raise  said  objection. 

The  Surveyor-General  says  that  all  papers  relating  to  the 
Saucelito  Rincho  should  have  been  excluded  from  this  ran- 
cho controversy  as  irrelevant,  but  that  a  portion  of  them 
having  already  been  introduced  without  objections,  any  other 
archive  evidence  relating  to  the  Saucelito  Rancho  may  be 
introduced. 

J.  B.  How^ard  moves  that  all  the  exhibits  and  papers  per- 
taining to  the  Saucelito  Rancho,  and  those  accompanying 
the  objection  to  the  survey,  and  being  now^  of  record  in  this 
case,  be  expunged  therefrom  as  being  wholly  irrelevant. 
By  the  Rancho  of  Saucelito  I  refer  to  the  claim  of  the  late 
Guillermo  A.  Richardson,  Expediente  N'o.  Ill,  Land  Case 
'No.  104,  District  Court  Case  No.  83  K  D.,  and  the  survey 
thereof  now  pending  in  said  District  Court,  together  with 
maps,  diseiios,  decrees,  orders,  and  whatever  pertains  thereto, 
and  for  all  the  names  on  file  and  objections  heretofore  made, 
and  that  the  testimony  in  this  case  be  confined  to  the  jurid- 
ical possession  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio, 
the  decree  of  confirmation  thereof,  and  the  instructions  of 
the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  of  5th  January,  1872,  and  sub- 
sequent orders  of  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land 
Office  issued  in  this  case. 

The  Surveyor-General  refuses  to  grant  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Howard,  and  overrules  the  same. 

J.  B.  Howard  excepts  to  the  ruling,  and  gives  notice  that 
he  will  renew  his  motion  before  the  Commissioner  General 
Lvmd  Office,  and  show  the  fraudulent  character  of  said  Ex- 
hibits. 

G.  F.  Allardt  is  directed  to  Ex.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  9,  commenc- 
ing on  page  20  thereof,  and  he  is  asked  to  read  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  initial  point  of  measurement  on  page  20  and  21 
thereof. 


no 

A.  I  have  read  it;  it  reads:  "  They  comnle need  saici 
Jneasurement  from  the  solar  which  faces  west  ;  and  standing 
at  the  slope  and  foot  of  the  hills  which  lie  in  that  direction, 
and  on  the  edge  of  the  forest  of  redwoods  called  "  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio,"  they  commenced  said  measurements, 
and  goini?  from  S.  to  N.  they  measured  to  an  arroyo  called 
Hoi  on,  where  is  an  ether  forest  of  redwoods  called  Corte 
Madera  de  San  Fahlo,  90  cordeles  or  50  varas,  and  the  per- 
son interestcjd,  fixing  there  a  known  point  as  a  mark,  said 
that  he  would  place  a  bound." 

J.  B,  Howard  objects  to  the  recital  as  not  being  an  exact 
translation  of  the  original  record  of  juridical  possession  on 
file  in  the  ofiice  of  the  U.  S.  Surveyor-General  in  this,  that 
it  does  not  clearly  describe  the  course  of  measurement  from 
the  point  of  b€\ginning  due  north  to  the  intersection  of  the? 
northerly  and  easterly  point  of  said  rancho. 

Counsel  for  Throckmorton  here  asks  Mr,  Howard  to  state 
explicitly  the  words  olijected  to,  which  he  claims  are  not  a 
correct  translation  of  the  juridical  measurement,  &i nee  the 
document  from  which  the  recital  is  taken  is  duly  certified 
by  the  Surveyor-General  as  a  correct  translation,  and  since 
the  same  recital  is  a  copy  of  the  juridical  measurement  as* 
found  on  page  No.  11,  near  the  bottom,  in  the  piinted 
pamphlet  issued  by  the  department,  entitled  ''Decision  of 
the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  and  Opinion  of  the  Assistiint 
Attorney-General  in  the  Case  of  the  Survey  of  the  Kancho 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio.  Printed  hy  the  Government 
Printing  Office,  at  Washington,  in  1872." 

J.  B,  Howard  states  in  reply,  that  the  proper  mode  of 
ascertaining  the  juridical  possession,  the  record  thereof  being: 
in  the  Spanish  language,  with  which  the  witness  is  not 
shown  to  be  familiar,  is  to  introduce  the  original  in  evidence, 
on  the  testimony  of  the  keeper  of  the  archives  or  some 
other  witness  skilled  in  a  knowledge  of  the  Spanish  and 
Enoflish  languages.  That  the  offer  is  otherwise  uncertain 
and  incompetent. 

J.  B.  Howard,  now,  upon  the  statement  made  by  R.  C, 
Hopkins,  Esq.,  skilled  in  the  Spanish  and  English  hmguages,. 
that  said  translation  is  correct,  that  the  letter  K  signities 
^orth,  and  the  letter  S  South,  withdraws  his  objection  to 
the  correctness  of  the  translation  of  the  juridical  possession' 
in  that  respect,  and  accepts  it  as  correct. 

Here  adjourned  till  lOJ  a.  m.  next  Mondciy, 


131 

Tuesday,  January  ISth,  1876. 
Ei^ami nation  resumed. 
All  present. 

6r»  F.  AllardCs  Examinalion  Resumed^ 

Q.  1.  It  appears  from  the  description  which  you  have 
just  read  (page  374  of  this  testimony),  that  the  juridical 
measurement  commenced  at  the  solar  which  faces  the  west, 
-and  that  they  stood  at  the  slope  and  foot  of  the  hills  which 
lie  in  that  direction,  and  on  the  edge  of  the  forest  of  red- 
woods called  the  *'  Gorte  Madera  del  Presidio."  Please  to 
lociite  said  initial  point  on  "  Exhibit  Ko.  6,'*  if  you  know 
what  is  referred  to  by  the  solar ;  and  state  what  yo.i  know 
with  reference  to  the  establishment  of  that  point  at  any 
time.  A.  I  understand  that  solar  signifies  a  small  piece  of 
•cleared  land,  which  might  be  used  as  a  garden,  and  I  should 
locate  it,  in  this  case,  at  a  point  between  the  house  of  Juan 
Read  and  the  edge  of  the  redwoods  called  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio,  which  redwoods  are  shown  at  the  present  time  by 
a  number  of  large  stumps — I  could  not  indicate  the  exact 
«pot — but  agree  with  l)eputy  Mathewson  in  locating  the 
solar  at,  or  near  a  jjlace  on  Exhibit  S.  R.  T.,  No.  6,  which  I 
mark  in  red  ink,  with  letter  C  in  a  circle. 

Q.  2.  Witness  is  now  shown  a  scale  of  measurement,  and 
is  asked  to  state  what  it  shows,  and  who  made  it  ?  A.  I 
made  the  scale  myself.  It  is  a  scale  of  cordeles  correspond- 
ing to  a  scale  of  20  chains  to  the  inch — and  which  is  the 
-scale  of  Ex.  S.  R.  T.  No.  6,  and  the  official  map  of  the  Ran- 
cho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio.  Said  scale  is  now  offered 
in  evidence  and  marked  S.  R.  T.  No.  16. 

Q.  3.  Please  to  apply  said  scale  of  measurement  to  the 
«olar  as  the  initial  point  and  indicate  on  Ex.  8.  R.  T,  No.  6, 
where  the  first  measurement  of  90  cordeles  would  strike  the 
llolon. 

Objected  to  by  Sol.  A,  Sharp  as  immaterial,  as  natural 
•objects  govern  courses  and  distances. 

A*  The  measurement  of  90  cordeles  beginning  at  the  solar 
would  strike  the  Arroyo  Holon  near  its  head,  and  also  at 
another  point  at  the  mouth  of  the  Arroyo  Holon  were  it  en- 
ters the  salt  marsh. 

Q.  4.  That  measurement  is  stated  to  have  reached  the 
Holon  where  is  another  corte  madera,  called  Corte  Madera 
de  San  Pablo.  Would  either  of  the  points  which  you  have 
indicated  on  the  Holon  as  being  reached  by  the  measure- 
*ment  of  90  cordeles  also  strike  the  Corte  Madera  de  San 


Pablo?  And  if  so,  which  one  of  the  points  of  the  Holon  ? 
A.  The  first  measurement  which  I  stated  as  reaching  the 
head  of  the  Arroyo  Holon.  would  also  strike  or  reach  the- 
Corte  Madera  de  San  Pablo.  The  second  measurement, 
that  is  to  say,  to  a  point  near  the  mauth  of  the  Arroyo 
Holon,  would  not  strike  the  Corte  Madera  de  San  Pablo. 

Q.  5.  In  your  previous  testimony  you  stated  that  from 
the  Exhibits  shown  you,  you  would  fix  the  western  boundary 
of  the  rancho  "  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio "  along  the 
Arroyo  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio.  How  would  the 
measurement  that  you  have  just  described  correspond  with 
said  boundary,  taking  into  consideration  the  usual  Spanish 
custom  or  mode  of  making  juridical  measurements  ?  A. 
It  would  correspond  so  closely  as  to  leave  no  doubt  in  my 
mind  as  to  the  identity  of  said  arroyo  with  the  line  of  jurid- 
ical measurement. 

Q.  6.  What  is  your  opinion  with  reference  to  the  mak- 
ing: of  this  measurement  ?  Was  it  desio^ned  to  follow  the 
boundary,  or  to  give  merely  the  measurements  between 
certain  points  for  the  purpose  of  determining  quantity?  A. 
Judging  from  my  experience  in  examining  juridical  measure- 
ments in  this  and  other  cases  of  surveys  of  Spanish  grants,  I 
think  that  the  juridical  measurement  in  this  case  was  made 
for  the  object:  1st,  of  determining  quantity;  2nd,  for  the 
purpose  of  identifying  natural  objects  referred  to  at  the  end 
of  each  course  in  the  juridical  measurement. 

Q.  7.  You  have  stated  that  you  were  present  as  an  as- 
sistant when  the  survey  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio,  known  as  the  Mathewson  survey,  was  made.  I 
refer  to  the  survey  of  4,460  24-100  acres.  Did  Mathewson. 
in  making  said  survey,  attempt  to  follow  the  juridical 
measurement,  to  which  you  have  just  referred,  and  if  not, 
what  was  said  survey  made  for  ?  A.  I  cannot  state,  from 
my  own  knowledge,  whether  Mathewson  was  guided  by  the 
calls  of  juridical  measurements  ;  but  his  survey,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  was  a  survey  for  quantity,  to  include  within  the  ranch 
one  square  league  of  land. 

Q.  8.  Do  you  know  whether  Mathewson  had  with  him 
the  expediente  of  the  case,  describing  the  boundaries  of  the 
rancho,  as  set  forth  in  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses,  who 
were  called  when  juridical  measurement  was  made,  or 
whether  he  had  with  him  the  decree  of  the  Board  of  Land 
Commissioners,  or  the  decree  of  the  District  Court,  when 
he  made  said  measurement  ?  A.  I  have  the  papers  in  my 
office  which  Mathewson  used  on  the  survey ;  but  I  do  not 
now  remember  what  they  are. 


188 

Q.  9.  po  you  know  under  whose  instructions  Mr.  Mathew;- 
^on  located  the  one  league  of  said  Ranchd  "  Corte  Madetk 
del  Presidio,"  where  he  did  ?  A.  I  understood  at  the  tim^ 
tliat  he  located  the  one  league  where  lie  diii,  frotn  instruc- 
iions  issued  frond  the  otiice  of  the  Surveyor-Greneral,  under 
J.  W.  Mandeville. 

Q.  10.  Please  to  look  at  Ex.  S.  R.  T.  ]^o.  ?,  and  state 
whether  the  tract  marked  theredri  "'  Tract  of  Idnd  owned 
by  and  referred  to  iii  the  objections  of  S.  R.  Throckmorton, 
and  colored  green,  would  be  within  the  Rancho  "  Cqrte 
Madera  del  Presidio,"  according  to  the  boundaries  and  the 
juridical  measurement  testified  to  by  yowl  A.  Yes,  all 
of  it.  G.  F,  ALLARDT, 

Gross-  Examination  by  J,  B,  Hoioard, 

/(^,  I-,  "f  lie  witness  is  .requested  to  examine  the  plat  bt 
Mathewsoti  survey  on  fele  in  connection  with  the  westerh 
line  of  the  rancho  as  represented  on  the  official  plat,  and  to 
.state  whether  or  how  nearly  the  said  western  line  corres- 
ponds to  the  western  line  originally  made  upqn  the  ground 
by  Mathewson  in  the  year  1858,  and  from  which  said  Ma- 
thewson's  map  was  constructed. 

Question  objected  to  hy  Mullen  &  Hyde,  as  indefinite  and 
K-onfused,  and  unintelligible. 

A.  The  western  boundary  of  the  rancho  on  the  plat  of 
Mathewson's  survey  is  correctly  shown  thereon,  as  surveyed 
by  me  under  Mathewson,  in  the  field  ii^  the  year  1858. 

Q.  2,  Is  m)t  the  western  line  of  said  rancho,  as  repre- 
sented on  official  plat,  from  post  O.  M.  P.  181  to  redwood  post 
P.  Q.  99  and  W.  R.  203,  identical  with  the  western  line  of 
Sijiid  rancho  as  run  by  Deputy  Surveyor  Mathewson  in  Oct., 
1858,  or  by  you  under  said  Mathewson  ? 

Mullen  &  Hyde  object  to  question,  as  being  incompetent 
and  immaterial. 

A.  Said  line  from  C.  M.  P,  181  to  redwood  post  P.  Q.  99 
and  W.  R.  203  was  run  by  me  under  deputy  Mathewson  ia 
1858,  but  I  do  not  know  whether  said  Mathewson  considered 
it  to  be  at  that  time  the  western  boundary  of  said  rancho. 

Q.  3.  Do  3'ou  know  upon  what  authority  said  survey  (^ 
1858  was  m«)dified  as  to  the  western  boundary  so  as  to  cor- 
respond to  legal  sutjdivisions  as  represented  on  said  Ma- 
ihewsoti  survey  plat  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Shanklin,  as  assuming  whd* 
is  not  a  fiict,  that  the  survey  was  modified  to  conform  to  le- 
gal subdivision  lines,  it  being  already  in  testimony  that  said 


survey  was  modified  for  the  purpose  of  locating  quantity^ 
viz  :   one  league. 

A.  All  I  remember  in  this  matter  is,  that  deputy  Ma- 
thewson  ordered  me  to  make  the  necessary  computations 
to  cut  off  one  league  of  land,  and  to  go  into  the  field  and 
survey  the  same. 

Q.  4.  That  was  a  subsequent  survey,  was  it  not  ?  That 
is,  to  the  first  survey  mentioned,  and  constituted  the  modi- 
fication of  which  I  have  spoken  ?  A.  The  line  from  C.  M.  P . 
181  to  redwood  post  P.  Q.  99  and  W.  li.  203  was  run  in 
order  to  close  the  survey  of  the  peninsula,  in  order  that  the 
area  could  be  computed  ;  subsequently  I  went  into  the  field 
again,  after  having  made  the  computation  of  area  based  on 
said  closing  line,  and  computing  a  line  cutting  off  one  league 
of  land  from  said  peninsula,  and  run  said  line  as  computed 
and  as  represented  on  Mathewson's  survey  plat ;  and  that  ac- 
counts for  the  western  boundary  as  shown  on  said  Mathew- 
son's plat;  that  is  all  I  have  got  to  say  on  that  question. 

Q.  5.  What  do  the  capital  letters  "  W.  K.,"  on  the 
official  plat,  viz :  at  redwood  post  P.  Q.  99,  stand  for  or 
represent?     A.   Widow  Read. 

Q.  6.  Who  was  Widow  Read,  and  what  relation  did  she 
have  to  the  rancho  ?  A.  Widow  Read,  as  I  understood  it 
at  that  time,  was  the  widow  of  Juan  Read,  the  claimant  of 
the  ranch. 

Q.  T.  Are  you  well  acquainted  with  the  stream  repre- 
sented on  the  western  and  southern  boundarj^  of  the  official 
plat,  from  Station  1  to  Post  20,  called  Arroyo  Corte  Madera 
del  Presidio  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  and  question 
asked  :  Official  plat  of  what  survey  do  you  refer?  I  refer 
to  the  official  plat  of  the  survey  as  made  by  Leander  Ran- 
som, in  September  and  October,  1873,  and  G.  F.  Allardt, 
in  June,  1874.  In  speaking  of  the  Mathewson  survey,  I 
refer  to  the  plat  by  his  name,  viz  :  Mathewson  survey. 

A.  I  am. 

Q.  8.  Are  you  acquainted  and  familiar  with  the  charac- 
ter of  said  stream,  from  said  Station  1  to  its  source  or 
sources,  and  if  so,  state  its  direction  towards  the  source  or 
sources  ;  and  if  it  branches,  state  the  relative  size,  width 
and  depth  of  the  water,  and  other  matters?  A.  I  am 
familiar  with  said  arroyo  from  its  mouth  to  its  source.  Its 
general  course  up  stream  is  northwesterly,  its  source  being 
in  Tamalpais  Mountain,  on  the  east  side.  There  is  a  branch 
or  fork  leaving  said  arroyo,  about  10  chains  above  the  fine 


135 

between  sections  28  and  29,  with  which  I  am  not  personally 
familiar.  1  cannot  speak  definitely  of  the  depth,  width  or 
size  of  said  arroyo,  as  it  was  dry  when  I  saw  it. 

Q.  9.  At  what  time  did  you  see  it  ?  A.  In  the  summer 
time. 

Q.  10.  Do  you  refer  to  the  southern  or  northern  branch 
of  said  arroyo  as  being  dry  in  the  summer  time  ?  A.  I  only 
spoke  of  one  branch"^;  that  was  dry  where  it  joined  the 
Arroyo  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  at  the  time  I  saw  it. 

Q.  11.  Was  the  other  branch  dry  ?  A.  I  have  only 
mentioned  one  branch. 

Q.  12.  Is  that  the  one  with  which  you  state  you  are 
familiar,  or  the  one  which  you  state  you  are  not  familiar  ? 
A.  I  stated  that  I  was  familiar  only  with  the  main  arroyo, 
and  not  with  the  branch. 

Q.  13.  Which  do  you  call  the  main  arroyo  —  the 
northern  or  the  southern  stream  ?  A.  The  northern  stream, 
or  the  one  running  up  northwesterly. 

^  Q.  14.  Does  the  northerly  stream  contain  or  run  more 
water  than  the  southerly ;  or  do  you  know  ?  A.  I  do  not 
know. 

Q.  15.  Why,  then,  do  you  call  it  the  main  arroyo  ?  A. 
By  main  arroyo,  I  mean  Arroyo  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio, 
and  it  is  the  same  arroyo  that  I  have  always  heard  so 
called. 

Q.  16.  Do  you  know  whether  any  mill,  to  be  run  by 
water-power,  was  constructed,  in  whole  or  in  part,  upon 
either  of  said  streams  ?  A.  I  do  not,  of  my  own  knowl- 
edge. 

Q.  17.  Have  you  never  known  or  heard  of,  officially  or 
otherwise,  a  place  called  the  Old  Mill,  situate  on  the  south- 
ern stream,  of  which  you  have  spoken,  and  about  half  a 
mile  westerly  from  the  intersection  of  the  two  blanches  or 
streams  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Shanklin  as  calling  for  hear- 
say evidence,  and  second,  because  it  is  not  responsive  to 
anything  elicited  on  direct  examination. 

A.  I  have  heard  spoken  of  such  a  place,  but  I  never  saw 
the  mill. 

Q.  18.  Do  you  not  know,  of  your  own  knowledge,  that 
the  framework,  wheels,  and  part  machinery  of  an  old  mill  is 
situate  on  said  southern  stream  ;  and  furthermore,  that  said 
stream  is  the  principal  arroyo,  and  contains  more  than  three 
times  as  much  water  as  the  northern  stream? 
•  Objected  to  by  Mr.  Shanklin  as  immaterial,  not  responsive 


186 

04  dii'ect  examination,  and  not  confined  to  any  descrfptioii 
of  boundaries  or  measurement  in  connection  with  the  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio  rancho. 

J.  B*  Howard  admits  that  said  question  would  be  irrele- 
vant on  direct  examination;  that  said  arroyos  above  Station 
1  do  not  pertain  to  the  record  of  juridical  possession.  But 
this  question  is  asked  for  the  purpose  of  explaining  irrele- 
vant testimony  in  the  record  brought  out  on  direct  examin- 
ation, and  to  show  the  incorrectness  thereof. 

jVIullen  &  Hyde  object  to  the  question  being  answered. 

The  objection  sustained. 

Q.  19.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  arroyo  mentioned  in 
record  of  juridical  possessipn,  viz  :  Olon  or  Ho! on,  froni  its 
fK)urce  to  its  mouth  ?    A.  I  am. 

Q.  20.  What  is  the  character  of  said  arroyo  as  to  its  sup- 
ply of  water,  and  to  what  point  or  distance  does  it  run  as  a 
stream  during  the  sumnier  or  dry  season  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Shanklin  as  immaterial;  nofe 
pertaining  to  any  description  given  in  the  calls  of  the  boun- 
daries or  measurements.  • 

A.  It  is  a  mountain  stream  or  brook  that  is  dry  in  th^ 
summer  time,  with  the  ex.ception  of  a  few  pools  here  and 
there  ;  therefore,  it  cannot  be  said  that  it  runs  for  any  dis- 
tance in  the  summer  time. 

Q.  21.  Does  not  the  water  in  said  stream  in  summer 
time  extend  from  its  mouth,  as  far  as  redwood  Post  P.  Q.^ 
99,  and  W.  B>.  203,  and  is  not  the  cmstant  supply  kept  up 
from  that  point  to  the  bay  by  a  spring  on  a  hill,  in  the  im- 
mediate vicinity  which  you  discovered  in  making  the  sur- 
vey of  the  western  line  of  said  rancho,  about  June,  1874  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  because  it  as- 
sumes that  this. witness  did  make  a  surv^ey  of  the  western 
line  of  this  rancho,  which  is  not  a  fair  statement  of  a  fact. 
This  witness  was  specially  instructed  on  the  28th  of  May^ 
1874^  as  appears  by  Ex.  Solar  No.  4,  to  retrace  a  specific 
line  that  had  previously  been  reported  upon  by  Deputy 
Surveyor  Bansom,  and  which  fine  extended  from  the  solar 
to  Arroyo  Holon,  and  was  never  authorized  to  establish^ 
locate,  or  otherwise  ascertain  and  define  on  the  ground  an 
original  line,  to  be  one  of  the  boundaries  of  this  rancho,  and 
reference  is  made  to  said  Exhibit  as  to  the  extent  of  duty 
imposed  upon  said  witness  under  said  instructions. 

A.  In  the  summer  time  there  is  water  in  detached  pools* 
on  the  whole  length  of  said  arroyo.  I  cannot  say  whether 
the  constant  supply  below  the  redwood  post  is  deriv^ed  fromi 


1S7 

^said  spring,  "but  I  should  say  net.  I  know  of  no  contlntiotis 
;stream  in  any  part  of  the  arroyo  in  the  summer  time. 

Q.  22,  When  apon  the  ground-,  near  said  post  P.  Q.  99 
;and  W.  R.  203,  in  making  said  survey  or  retracing — how 
^did  you  ascertain  4;he  monument  representing  said  post  or 
station  ?  A.  The  orlgina-l  post  or  tree  had  been  destroyed. 
K  therefore  retraced  a  course  of  the  official  rancho  of  the 
Hancho  Punta  de  San  Quentin,  via.:  from  the  Jaurel  tree 
^marked  P.  Q.  98,  W.  R.  204. 

Q.  23.  How  did  this  prox3ess  enable  you  to  fix  or  ascer- 
tain said  post  or  station  ?  A,  I  resurveyed  from  said  laurel 
the  course  and  distance  given  in  the  official  field  notes  of 
the  Rancho  Punta  de  San  Quentin,  described  as  running 
from  said  laurel  to  the  redwood  post  P.  Q.  99,  W.  R.  203, 
in  said  official  notes  of  tbe  Rancho  Punta  de  San   Quentin, 

Q,  2L  How  was  post  P,  Q.  98  conne<jted  with  the  Ran- 
-cho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  so  as  to  enable  you  from 
that  point  to  ascertain  tlie  location  of  post  P,  Q.  99  and  W-. 
R.  203  ?  A,  The 'Course  and  distance  is  given  in  the  Ransom 
^survey  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  as  being 
along  the  eastern  boundary  of  the  Rancbo  Punta  de  San 
•Quefitin, 

Q.  25.  By  whom,  if  you  know,  was  the  post  or  tree, 
originally  standing  as  indicated  on  the  official  plat  Redwood 
post  P.  Q.  99  and  W.  R.  203,  first  located  and  marked ;  I 
refer  to  the  tree  whi<*.h  you  state  was  destroyed  on  or  prior 
to  June,  1874  ?  A.  By  myself,  under  Deputy  Mathewson, 
in  1858. 

Q.  26,  In  conn-ection  with  the  survey  of  what  rancho 
was  said  tree  marked  by  you  in  1858  ? 

Question  objiected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  because  the  tes- 
timony thus  far  shows  that  it  was  not  done  in  connection 
with  the  survey  of  any  rancho,  but  said  line  w^as  surveyed 
for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a  closing  line  with  other 
lines  meandering  the  peninsula,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertain- 
ing the  area  therein  contained. 

A.  It  was  marked  by  me  P.  Q.  99  for  Rancho  Punta  de 
San  Quentin,  and  marked  W,  R.  203  for  the  Rancho  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio;  as  I  supposed  at  the  time  that  said 
tree  might  prove  to  be  in  the  boundary  Hne  of  the  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio,  and  by  marking  at  the  time  (1858) 
that  I  might  obviate  the  necesvsity  of  going  to  the  tree  again, 
in  case  it  should  be  subsequently  decided  that  said  tree 
would  be  a  station  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio. 

Q.  27.     For  what  purpose  did  you  re-mark  said  post  99 


and'  203  and  98  and  204,  in  the  survey  of  said  western  ITne^ 
in  June,  1874^ as  stated  in  ycKir  field  notes?  A.  In  order  to* 
perpetuate  the  marks  that  I  nmde  in  1858,  as  found  in  Ma- 
thewson'^s  dd  field  books. 

Q.  28^.  What  is  the  forn>  and  extent  of  the  mjountain^ 
fyin^  north  and  ea&t  of  the  source  of  the  Arroyo-  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio,  called  Tanaalpais,  Table  Mountain,. 
Malpais,  Sierra^  San  Rafael  and  other  nanies  ?  A.  There  is 
no  such  mountain  north  or  east  c^*  said  Arroya  Corte  Ma- 
dera del  Presidio^ 

Q.  29.  If  you  start  at  post  P.  Q.  99' and  W.  R.  203  and 
travel  w^esterfy  through  Riley's  Valley,  or  along:  the  Arroyo- 
Holon,-  as  represented  we&terly'  of  said  post,  is  tliere  any  ob- 
struction which  prevents  you  from  reaching  the  source  or 
bed  o^'  the  Arroyo  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ;  if  so,  what 
IS- it?  A.  There  is  no  insurmountable  ol)structiou  ;  tlie 
sources  of  tlie  two  streams  are  separated  by  a  narrow^ 
brushy  spur  of  the  Tamalpais  mountain. 

Q.  30.  What  is  the  elevation  of  that  spur  from  post  P, 
Q.  99  and  W.  R.  203?  A.  I  cannot  say  jwsitively,  but  I 
should  say  about  2,000  feet. 

Q.  3L  What  is  the  distance  from  redwood  post  P.  Q. 
99,  atid  W.  I^,  20'3,  to  the  source  of  the  An^yo  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio?  A.  Almost  a  mile  and  a  half^  in  a 
straight  line. 

Q.  32.  Have  you  ever  been  employed  by  S.  R,  Throck- 
mortoiiy  W.  T,  Coleman  or  G.  P.  Hart,  appeanng  here  a& 
objecting  to  survey,  in  connection  with  private  surveys 
in  the  vicinity,  or  upon  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde  as  immaterial  and  incom- 
petent. 

Same  objection  made  by  counsel  for  Throckmorton. 

Question  withdrawn. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  request  question  to  be  answered. 

Witness  says  the  question  is  not  clear. 

Q.  33.  Have  you  been  employed  and  paid  by  either  of 
these  parties  ?  A.  I  have  made  private  surveys  for  W.  T. 
Coleman  and  S.  R.  Throckmorton,  at  various  times. 

J.  B.  Howard  now  closes  cross-examination  of  Geo.  F. 
Allardt. 

Adjourned  until  lOJ  o'clock,  Wednesday,  January  19th, 
1876. 


139 

San  Francisco,  Jan.  19th,  1876, 

Case  called,  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Witness,  Geo.  F.  Allardt,  on  the  stand,  who  desires  to 
explain  the  testimony  given  by  him  yesterday. 

Q.  34— (By  Mullen  &  Hyde).  In  the  letter  of  Hon, 
Willis  Drummond,  Commissioner  General  Land  Office, 
addressed  to  J.  R.  Hardenburgh,  as  U.  S.  Surveyor-General 
for  California,  directing  said  officer  to  cause  a  new  survey 
of  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  to  be  made,  uses 
language  as  follows :  "  That  the  name  Point  Tiburon,  as 
*'  used  in  the  record  of  juridical  possession,  describes  gene- 
<*  rally  the  entire  body  of  land  bounded  by  San  Francisco 
*'  and  Saucelito  bays,  and  by  a  line  running  northeasterly 
^'  from  near  meander  course  105,  to  near  meander  course 
^*  24,  as  said  courses  are  marked  on  the  plat  of  Mathevvson's 
**  survey,  executed  in  1858 ;  and  further  states,  from  the 
"data  before  me,  I  incline  to  the  opinion  that  the  second 
*Miypothesis  (to- wit:  that  which  is  heretofore  and  above 
*^  written)  is  the  correct  one  in  this  case,  and  that  the  jurid- 
"  ical  survey  terminated  at  some  point  on  a  line  drawn 
"  directly  across,  from  course  to  course,  as  above  stated. 
"  This  construction  of  the  words  used  in  the  record  of 
"juridical  proceedings  will  harmonize  the  measurements 
"  stated  to  have  been  made  from  Holon  to  Tiburon,  and 
"  from  Tiburon  to  the  place  of  beginning,  with  the  actual 
"  distances  between  those  places."  Xow  please  look  at  the 
plat  of  said  Mathewson  survey,  and  point  out  thereon  the 
courses  marked  24  and  105,  and  in  pencil  mark  them  "A" 
and  "B,"  respectively. 

The  witness,  having  examined  said  map,  and  having 
found  said  courses,  marked  them /' A"  and  "  B,"  as  re- 
quested. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  ask  this  question,  in  this  particular  man- 
ner, and  at  this  particular  time,  for  the  reason  that  the 
diagram  enclosed  with  the  communication,  from  which  the 
foregoing  extract  has  been  taken,  and  upon  which  diagram 
was  represented  by  a  dotted  blue  line,  the  eastern  boundary 
of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  as  defined  by 
said  communication  as  extending  from  course  24  to  course 
105  of  the  Mathewson  survey,  is  missing  from  the  papers  of 
this  case,  and,  after  long  and  diligent  search,  cannot  be 
found. 


140 

Mr,  Allardt  called  as  a  witness  by  Mullen  &  Hyde, 

Q.  35.  From  your  knowledge  of  the  ground,  between 
«aid  points,  marked  "A"  and  "-B  "  in  lead  pencil  on  the 
plat  of  said  Mathewson's  survey  of  1860,  is  there  any  diffi- 
culty of  a  physical  nature  to  prevent  a  surveyor  from  estab- 
lishing said  line  on  the  ground  by  direct  measurement  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  the  claimant  (Mr.  Sharp)  as  in- 
competent^ immaterial,  and  not  cross-examination  or  ex- 
planation. 

A.  A  direct  line  from  "A"  to  '•  B  "  would  ascend  to  the 
top  of  the  main  ridge^  and  descend  to  the  bay  at  "  B ;"  the 
ground  is  rough  and  hilly,  but  not  impracticable  for  sur- 
veying. 

Q.  36,  Please  now  look  at  the  plat  of  the  survey  of  this 
ranchoy  as  returned  by  Leander  Ransom,  pur[)orting  to  be 
made  in  September  and  October,  1873,  and  identify  thereon 
two  points  that  would  correspond  with  the  points  marked 
*'A"  and  "B"  on  the  plat  of  Mathewson's  survey;  and 
having  identiiicd  them,  please  mark  them  in  lead  pencil 
"A"  and  ''  B,"  for  the  purpose  of  future  reference. 

Mr.  Sharp  makes  some  objection  as  to  previous  question, 
in  behalf  of  claimants,  and  also  objects  to  question  34,  on 
page  399,  to  this  witness,  on  the  ground  that  same  is  incom- 
petent, immaterial,  and  not  cross-examination  or  explanation, 
and  moves  to  strike  out  that  portion  ol  said  interrogatory,  in 
which  Mullen  &  Hyde  give  a  reason  for  asking  the  ques- 
tion; and  on  the  same  ground  moves  to  strike  out  the  an- 
swer to  said  question,  and  ruling  asked  for  by  Mr.  Sharp. 

Motion  granted,  and  so  much  of  the  statement,  as  made 
by  Mullen  &  Hyde  on  page  400,  is  stricken  out,  with  consent 
of  Mullen  &  Hyde,  through  Capt.  Mullen. 

Witness  here  states,  upon  his  own  motion,  that  he  with- 
draws his  desire  to  explain  the  testimony  given  yesterday. 

A,  Witness  having  examined  the  said  map,  says:  I  huve 
80  marked  them  "A"  and  "B,"  as  requested. 

Q.  37.  Please  now  describe,  in  specific  language,  tlje 
positions  of  said  letters  "A"  and  "B,"  marked  in  lead  pen- 
cil, as  by  you  made  on  the  plat  of  the  survey,  as  returned 
by  said  Ransom. 

Mr.  Sharp,  in  behalf  of  claimants,  objects  to  this  question 
as  being  incompetent,  irrelevant,  and  not  tending  to  prove 
any  issues  in  this  controversy-. 

A.  The  point  marked  "A"  is  near  the  end  of  the  506th 
course,  near  California  City  Point ;  and  the  point  marked 
"B"  is  near  the  end  of  the  271st  course,  marked  "post 
290,"  on  Richardson's  Bay. 


141 

Q.  38,  Would  a  line  drawn  from  A  to  B  on  the  plat  of 
the  survey,  as  returned  by  Ransom,  correspond  with  a  line 
drawn  from  A  to  B  on  the  plat  of  the  survey  as  returned 
by  Mathewson  ? 

Same  objection  by  Mr.  Sharp,  on  behalf  of  claimants,  iis 
to  previous  question. 

A,     It  would, 

Q.  39.  Suppose  that  a  line  drawn  from  <*A"  to  "  B"  on 
the  plat  of  the  survey,  as  returned  by  Ransom,  had  been 
adopted  by  you  as  a  closing  line  in  connection  with  the  re- 
maining lines  of  said  pkt  of  said  survey  lying  to  the  west 
thereof,  that  is,  west  of  the  line  drawn  from  A  to  B,  and  in 
connection  with  the  east  boundary  of  the  Rancho  Saucelito 
and  the  Arroyo  Holon,  through  its  entire  length,  for  the 
purposes  of  computation  ;  how  would  the  area  of  the  tract 
lying  tn  the  east  of  line  A  B,  and  extending  to  Point  Ti- 
buron,  on  the  plat  of  the  survey  returned  by  Ransom,  cor- 
respond with  the  area  of  public  land  represented  on  the 
township  plat  ot  T.  1  ¥.,  R,  6  W.,  said  last  area  beins: 
949  68-100  acres? 

Mr,  Sharp,  on  behalf  of  claimants,  objects  to  question  as 
incompetent  and  irrelevant,  and  calling  for  facts  foreign  to 
the  issues  in  this  controversy,  also  that  it  is  hypothetical  and 
needlessly  incumbers  the  record ;  also  that  it  assumes 
facts  not  in  proof, 

A.  T  cannot  tell  without  computation,  but  I  can  approx- 
imate to  it  by  appl^dng  a  scale  on  the  map. 

Q.  40.  Will  you  please  apply  a  scale  on  the  plat  of 
Ransom's  survey  and  state  the  correspondence  approxim- 
ately. 

Mr.  Sharp,  for  claimants,  makes  same  objections  to  this  as 
to  last  question. 

A.  The  area  on  said  Ransom's  map,  lying  easterly  of  said 
line  A  B,  is  approximately  1780  acres. 

Q.  41.  Please  state  how  the  area  of  so  much  of  the 
survey  as  lies  to  the  east  of  the  line  A  B,  on  the  plat  of  the 
survey  as  returned  by  Mathewson,  corresponds  with  the 
area  of  public  land  lying  to  the  north  and  west  of  the  west 
boundary  of  the  survey  of  the  said  rancho,  as  returned  by 
Mathewson  ? 

Mr.  Sharp,  for  claimants,  makes  the  same  objections  to 
this  as  to  question  39. 

A.  The  approximate  area  easterly  of  the  line  A  B,  on 
the  Mathewson's  survey  is  1780  acres;  the  approximate  area 
of  the  public  land  lying  north  and  west  of  the  Mathewson 
survey  is  2520  acres. 


142 

Q.  42.  Then  in  order  to  give  to  said  rancho  tlie  areat 
of  one  square  league,  and  supposing  that  any  excess  thereof 
was  to  be  cut  off  on  the  Eastern  end  of  said  rancho  as  claim-^ 
ed,  would  a  line  cutting- off  such  excess  Ue  to  the  east  or  to 
the  west  of  a  line  drawn  frona  A  to  B,  on  the  plat  oi  the 
Mathewson  survey  ? 

Mr.  Sharp,  for  claimants,  makes  the  same  objections  to 
this  as  to  question  39. 

A.  In  order  to  answer  that  question,  I  must  know  what 
you  assume  to  be  the  western  and  northern  boundaries  of 
said  rancho. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  answer — ^that  they  assume  that  all  the 
public  land  represented  and  left  as  such  to  the  north  and 
west  of  the  west  boundary  of  the  Mathewson  survey,  and 
extending  to  the  east  bouudary  of  the  Rancho  Saucelito,  ac- 
cording to  the  final  survey  hereof  on  file  in  this  office,  and 
to  the  Arroyo  liolon,  is  to  be  included  as  a  part  of  the  Ran- 
cho Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  in  the  final  survey  thereof 

Mr.  Sharp,  for  claimants,  objects  to  this  answer,  instructing 
this  witness,  as  the  documentary  evidence  is  the  best  proof 
determining  the  juridical  boundaries  of  the  rancho  in  ques- 
tion. 

Additional  answer  to  question  42 — Such  a  line  would  lie 
to  west  of  line  A  B. 

Q.  43.  Please  indicate  on  the  plat  of  the  Mathewson 
survey  a  line  constructed  thereon  parallel  to  a  line  drawn 
from  A  to  B,  that  would  give  the  quantity  of  one  square 
league,  based  upon  the  assumption  as  before  stated  and  as 
approximately  as  you  can,  and  mark  the  same. 

Mr.  Sharp,  for  claimants,  makes  the  same  objections  to 
this  as  to  question  39. 

A.  I  have  indicated  such  a  line,  and  it  runs  from  the  end 
of  the  115th  course  to  the  end  of  the  16th  course  of  the  Ma- 
thewson survey,  and  I  have  marked  it  "  E  F,"  in  pencil,  on 
the  map  of  the  Mithewson  survey. 

Q.  44.  Please  look  at  Exhibit  marked  "Plat  filed  hy 
Mullen  &  Hyde,  with  their  motion  of  Oct.  7th,  1875,"  and 
mark  thereon  in  red  ink  letters  "E  "  and  "  F,"  correspond- 
ing with  the  letters  "  E  "  and  "  F,"  marked  !>y  vou  in  lead 
pencil  on  the  plat  of  Mathewson's  survey  of  said  ranciio. 

Mr.  Sharp,  for  claimants,  makes  the  same  objections  to 
this  as  to  question  39. 

A.     I  have  done  so. 

Q.  45.  Assuming  that  the  boundary  of  the  Rancho  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio,  according  to  the  juridical  possession 


143 

thereof,  was  the  Arro^^o  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  on  the 
west  as  far  as  its  junction  with  Richardson's  Bay,  as  indi- 
cated on  said  Exhibit  upon  which  you  have  marked  in  red 
ink  the  letters  ''  E  "  and  "  F,"  and  on  the  north  the  Arroyo 
Holon  to  its  junction  with  the  waters  of  the  bay  as  indicated 
on  said  Exhibit,  and  on  the  south  by  the  waters  of  the  bay 
as  represented  on  said  Exhibit ;  and  supposing  that  said  ran- 
<iho  was  limited  to  one  square  league  of  land,  would  a  line 
drawn  from  ''E  "  to  "F  "  approximately  represent  the  east- 
ern boundary  of  said  rancho  in  that  direction  ? 

Mr.  Cutter  objects  to  the  question,  on  the  ground  that  iti 
assumes  as  a  north  boundary  the  arroyo  called  Holon  on  the 
plat,  from  its  source  to  its  mouth  ;  whereas  there  is  nothing 
in  the  juridical  possession  or  juridical  measurement  to  indi- 
cate that  the  Arroyo  Holon  was  a  boundary  or  that  the  ar- 
royo called  Holon  on  said  plai  was  the  arroyo  of  that  name 
referred  to  in  said  juridical  measurement  and  possession  ; 
and  moreover  that  by  the  said  measurement  and  possession 
the  Holon,  when  proven,  shows  only  a  point  to  which  one 
line  of  measurement  extended. 

Mr.  Sharp  objects,  in  behalf  of  the  claimants,  to  the  ques- 
tion, on  the  ground  that  it  is  incompetent,  irrelevant,  hypo- 
thetical, and  foreign  to  the  facts  at  issue. 

A.  A  line  drawn  from  ''E  "  to  "  F  "  on  said  Exhibit, 
would  include  fully  a  league,  but  I  cannot  say  whether  said 
line  E  F  would  be  the  proper  or  correct  eastern  boundary 
in  that  direction. 

Q.  46.  By  what  name  has  the  land  lying  to  the  east  of  a 
line  drawn  from  E  to  F  been  called,  and  by  what  name  is 
it  recognized  in  Marin  Countj^  California  ? 

Mr.  Sharp,  for  claimants,  makes  same  objection  to  this  as 
to  question  89,  and  also  that  it  calls  for  hearsay  and  is  in- 
definite. 

A.  I  cannot  answer  definitely,  but  I  have  heard  it  called 
frequently  '^  the  peninsula,"  or  "part  of  the  Read  rancho," 
or  "Point  Tiburon." 

Q.  47.  Would  a  line  drawn  from  E  to  F,  as  indicated 
on  said  Exhibit,  be  approximately  the  position  of  a  Hue  on 
the  ground  that  would  cut  off  said  peninsula,  or  Point  Tib- 
uron, from  the  body  of  mam  land  vviui  which  it  is  connected  '( 

Mr.  Sharp,  in  behalf  of  claimants,  makes  the  same  ob- 
jection to  this  as  to  question  39. 

A.  A  line  from  E  to  F  would  cut  off  tlje  greater  part  of 
said  peninsula,  or  Point  Tiburon,  from  the  main  land. 

Q.  48.     Could  a  body  of  land,   containing  twenty   thous- 


144 

and  (20,000)  Castilian  varas,  be  cut  out  from  the  ground 
represented  on  said  Exhibit,  and  Ijing  west  of  a  line  drawn 
from  E  to  F,  as  marked  on  said  Exhibit,  and  which  line  is 
represented  in  red  ink  on  said  Exhibit,  and  which  area  is 
referred  to  in  the  juridical  possession,  in  words  following, 
to-wit :  "  so  that  the  square  league  of  land  which  the  Rancho 
"  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  contains,  forms  a  square  of 
"  20,000  Castilian  varas,  which,  being  regulated  by  said 
"  measures,  they  declared  citizen  Juan  Read  to  be  informed 
"  of  the  lands  which  belong  to  his  rancho  ?" 

Mr.  Sharp,  for  claimants,  objects  to  question  as  incom- 
petent and  irrelevant. 

A.  I  do  not  understand  the  question. 

Q.  49.  What  would  be  the  area  of  a  square  body  of 
land,  the  sides  of  which  are  five  thou-and  (;),0J0)  varas  in 
length  ?  A.  It  would  contain  one  Spanish  square  leas^ue, 
or  4,438.68  acres. 

Q.  50.  Assuming  that  a  square  mile  of  twenty  thous- 
and Castilian  varas  means  a  square  the  sum  of  whose  sides 
is  20,000  Castilian  varas  in  length,  please,  then,  answer 
question  48. 

Mr.  Sharp,  for  claimants,  makes  the  same  objection  to 
this  as  to  question  39. 

A.  ITo. 

Q.  51.  Would  the  ground  represented  on  said  Exhibit, 
and  lying  to  the  west  of  a  line  drawn  from  E  to  F  thereon, 
contain  more  or  less  than  4,438.68  acres? 

Mr.  Sharp,  for  claimants,  makes  same  objection  to  this  as 
to  question  39. 

A.  It  would  contain  more  than  4,438.68  acres. 

Q.  52.  Could  you  state,  approximately,  how  much 
more  ? 

Mr.  Sharp,  for  claimants,  makes  same  objection  to  this  as 
tb  question  39. 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  53.     Please  so  state. 

Mr.  Sharp,  for  claimants,  makes  same  objection  to  this  as 
to  question  39. 

A.  About  two  thousand  (2,000)  acres  more. 

Q.  54.  Assuming  that  the  dotted  black  line  on  this 
Exhibit  defines  the  line  of  segregation  between  the  salt 
marsh  and  dry  land,  how  would  the  area  contained  between 
said  dotted  black  line  and  the  line  to  the  north  thereof, 
shaded  red,  compare  with  said  excess  of  2,000  acres,  more 
or  less  ? 


145 

Mr.  Sharp,  for  claimants,  makes  same  objection  to  this  as 
to  question  39. 

A.  The  area  contained  between  the  dotted  line  and  the 
irregular  line,  shaded  red,  lying  northerly  thereof,  is  about 
equal  to  such  excess,  viz :  two  thousand  acres. 

Court  adjourned  until  to-morrow  (Thursday)  morning,  at 
10:30  o'clock  a.  m. 


Thursday,  January  20th,  1876. 
Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment,  and  adjourned  until 
Monday,  January  24th,  1876,  at  10;80  o'clock  a.  m. 


Monday,  January  24th,  1876. 
Court    met    pursuant    to   adjournment,    and,    all    parties 
acrreeing,  adjourned  until  to-morrow  (Tuesday)  morning  at 
10:30  o'clock  a,  m.  -  " 


Tuesday,  January  25th,  1876. 
Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment,  and  adjourned  until 
to-morrow,  Wednesday,  January  26th,  1876,  at  10:30  o'clock 

A,  M. 


Wednesday,  January  26th,  1876. 

Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment  at  10:30  a.  m. 

Witness  Gr,  F.  Allardt  re-called  by  Mullen  &  Hyde. 

Q.  55.  It  appears  on  page  289  in.  evidence  in  this  case 
that  you  were  the  surve3^or  and  engineer  of  the  State  Board 
of  Tide  Land  Commissioners  for  Cahfornia,  and  filed  in  the 
office  of  said  Board  the  lield  notes  of  such  survey.  Please 
state  whether  you  furnished  Leander  Ransom  with  a  copy 
of  any  held  notes  of  such  survey  ot  any  lands  in  question  in 
this  case,  and  if  so,  what  notes,  under  what  contract  with 
said  Ransom,  and  the  nature  thereof,  and  for  what  purpose 
were  said  notes  to  be  used,  so  far  as  you  know?  A.  De- 
puty Ransom  called  on  me  in  1873  for  certain  field  notes  on 
record  in  the  Tide  Land  Commissioner  Office.  I  procured 
them  for  him,  and  they  consisted  of  the  meanders  of  the 
salt  marsh  and  tide  lands  extending  from  the  north  of  the 
Arroyo  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  eastwardly  to  Peninsula 
Island  and  Raccoon  Straits  ;  thence  westwardly  to  the  mouth 
of  the  Arroyo  Holon,  being  the  entire  meanders  of  the  inner 
line  of  the  salt  marsh  and  the  outer  line  thereof,  or  the  hne 


146 

of  ordinary  high -tide  from  said  Arroyo  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio  to  said  Arroyo  Holon.  Deputy  Ransom  agreed  to 
pay  me  for  my  labor  in  furnishing  copy  of  such  notes  a 
reasonable  compensation,  I  think  it  was  $200 — but  he  died 
and  I  got  no  pay.  As  far  as  I  know,  and  as  I  believed  at 
the  time,  said  field  notes  were  used  by  Deputy  Ransom  as  a 
part  of  the  field  notes  for  his  survey  of  the  Rancho  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio,  and  as  such  were  returned  by  him  to 
the  Surveyor-General's  Office. 

Q.  56.  When  did  said  Leander  Ransom  die  ?  A.  I  do 
not  know  the  exact  date,  but  it  was  several  months  subse- 
quent to  October,  1873. 

Q.  57.  Please  examine  field  notes  of  the  final  survey  of 
the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  surveyed,  com- 
piled and  arranged  by  said  Leander  Ransom  in  September 
and  October,  1873,  an<l  state  whether  said  notes  as  there 
presented,  including  erasures  and  annotations,  are  the 
same  that  you  furnished  said  Ransom,  and  in  the  form  there 
represented?  A.  Said  field  notes  are  evidently  copied 
from  field  notes  on  file  in  the  Tide  Land  C«)mniis8ioners' 
Office.  I  called  them  off  to  Leander  Ransom  and  he  wrote 
them  down.  I  never  furnished  him  a  written  copy;  but  I 
have  reason  to  believe  that  he  wrote  them  down  correctly, 
for  we  compared  them  afterwards  with  the  originals.  The 
annotations  and  erasures  were  made  subsequently,  but  I  do 
not  know  by  whom. 

Q.  58.  Do  you  recognize  the  general  body  of  those  notes 
to  be  in  the  handwriting  of  Leander  Ransom  ?  A.  They 
are  all  in  the  handwriting  of  Leander  Ransom. 

Q.  59.  Look  at  some  of  the  erasures  where  said  field 
notes  and  remarks,  under  the  head  of  topography,  have  been 
crossed  out  in  black  ink  or  lead  pencil;  for  instance — at 
course  80  ;  at  course  198  ;  at  course  206,  i,n  lead  pencil ; 
course  240;  course  287,  288,  298;  and  state  if  you  recog- 
nize in  whose  handwriting  they  have  been  made  ?  A.  I  do 
not  recognize  the  handwriting. 

Q.  60.  Is  it  the  handwriting  of  Leander  Ransom  ?  A. 
No,  it  is  not. 

Q.  61.  The  certificate  of  said  notes,  as  made  by  yourself 
in  the  form  of  an  affidavit,  bears  date  (Jan'y  27th,  1874) 
January  twenty-seventh,  1874,  and  Ransom's  certificate  in 
the  same  form  bears  same  date,  to  wit:  January  twenty- 
seventh,  1874 ;  and  it  also  appears  that  Ransom  died  a  few 
months  after  the  return  of  said  field  notes  to  the  Surveyor- 
General's    office,    and    the    certificate    of    the    Secretary 


147 

of  the  Board  of  State  Tide  Land  Comniiasioners  bearg 
date  December  twelfth,  1874.  Please  state  how  it  comes 
that  said  certiticate  of  said  beeretary  bears  date  sub- 
sequent to  all  of  said  dates  as  stated,  and  subsequent  to  the 
date  of  the  death  of  said  Leander  Ransom  ?  A.  My 
own  certificate  and  said  Ransom's  certificate  were  made 
during  his  lifetime;  the  certificate  of  J.  M.  Currier,  Sec- 
retary of  the  Board  of  State  Tide  Land  Commissioners, 
was  made  several  months  subsequent  to  said  Ransom's  death. 
I  do  not  know  the  reason  why  such  is  the  case. 

Q.  62.  Is  not  the  body  of  the  certificate  of  said  secretary, 
as  signed  December  twelfth,  1874,  in  your  handwriting  ?  A. 
It  is. 

Q.  63.  Do  you  recall  at  the  present  time  any  circum- 
stances under  which  said  certificate  was  prepared  and  signed, 
and  at  whose  instigation  same  was  done?  A.  Yes,  I  do. 
It  was  done  at  the  request  of  Surveyor-General  Stratton. 

Q.  64.  Do  you  know  for  what  purpose,  or  what  reasons, 
if  any,  he  assigned  for  having  same  done  ?  A.  I  think  tiie 
reason  was  this  :  I  was  not  at  that  time  (December  twelfth, 
1874)  an  ofiicer  of  the  Board  of  State  Tide  Land  Commis- 
sioners, but  the  Secretary  of  said  Board  was  the  proper 
person  to  make  such  a  certificate.  I  do  not  remember  any 
reason  that  he  assigned,  but  he  seemed  to  consider  a  cer- 
tificate from  said  secretary  as  very  necessary  and  important, 
as  he  asked  me  several  times  to  procure  it. 

Q.  65.  The  township  plat  of  T.  1  K,  R.  6  W.,  Mount 
Diablo  mer.,  and  the  surveys  thereof,  was  approved  by  the 
Surveyor-General  on  the  tw^enty-seventh  of  I^ovember,  1874. 
Please  state  what  additional  validity  could  be  given  said 
notes  by  a  certificate  of  said  secretary  bearing  a  subsequent 
date  ?     A.  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  6Q,     Was  there  any  crossing  out,   as  represented  in 
the  said  notes  at  the  present  time,   shown  at  the  date  of 
December  12th,  1874,  at  the  time  said  certificate  was  made? 
A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  67.  The  certificate  of  said  Secretary,  as  shown  in 
said  notes,  made  December  12th,  1874,  precedes,  in  order 
of  arrangement  therein,  the  certificate  as  made  by  Leander 
Ransom,  January  27th,  1874.  Do  you  know  of  any  reason 
why  said  certificate  was  interpolated  and  made  to  appear  as 
preceding  the  certificate  of  said  Ransom,  one  being  prior  in 
date,  but  subsequent  in  arrangement,  and  vice  versa  9  A. 
I  do  not. 

Q.  68.     Have  you  ever  been  paid  by  the  United  States, 


148 

or  by  any  other  person,  for  the  field  notes  as  furnished  by 
you   to  said  Ransom,  as  a  survey  of  this   Rancho   Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio,  and  labor  connected  therewith  ?     A. 
I  have  not. 
Recess  taken  until  2  o'clock  p.  m. 


Re-assembled  at  2  o'clock  p.  m. 

Questions  by  Peter  Gardner  in  Cross- Examination, 

Q.  69.  Point  out  on  the  official  map  where  the  end  of 
the  east  and  west  line  terminates  at  the  end  of  ninety-four 
(94)  cordeles  from  Point  Tiburon.  A.  That  line,  of  94 
cordeles,  is  not  shown  on  said  official  map. 

Q.  70.  Point  out  on  the  official  map  the  termination  of 
the  line  which  is  referred  to  in  the  act  of  juridical  posses- 
sion, as  follows,  to-wit:  "thence  continuing  the  measure- 
''  ment  from  east  to  west  to  the  mouth  of  the  Canada  and 
"the  point  of  the 'sausal,'  which  is  near  the  estero  lyiui^ 
"  east  of  the  house  of  the  person  interested,  which  is  at  pre- 
"  sent  on  the  rancho,  there  were  measured  ninety-four 
"cordeles."  A.  I  do  not  see  on  the  official  map  a  line 
corresponding  to  the  above  description. 

Q.  71.  Point  out  on  the  official  map  the  point  which 
corresponds  to  the  termination  of  the  before-described  line 
of  juridical  possession.  A.  I  cannot  designate  the  point 
with  exactness,  but  in  my  judgment  said  point  is  near  the 
station  marked  "  C.  M  P.  177,'"  and  "  S.  Q.  1858,"  bearing 
southwesterly  from  Juan  Read's  old  adobe  house  on  said 
official  map. 

Q.  72.  Take  the  scale  "  S.  R.  T.  No.  16,"  and  continu- 
ing the  measurement  from  east  to  west  along  the  line 
mentioned  in  the  preceding  question,  sixteen  cordeles,  and 
designate  the  termination  of  such  sixteen  cordeles  by 
reference  to  the  official  plat  of  Ransom's  survey.  A.  If  I 
continue  the  line  from  said  Station  "  C.  M.  P.  177,"  and 
'' S.  Q.  1858,"  and  run  due  west  sixteen  cordeles,  the 
termination  of  said  sixteen  cordeles  will  reach  the  [)oint  on 
the  official  map  which  I  now  mark  in  lead  pencil  with  the 
letter  "  C,"  which  point  on  said  map  is  on  lands  marked 
"  Rancho  Saucelito." 

Ques.  73.  The  first  course  of  the  act  of  juridical  posses- 
sion is  stated  as  follows,  viz  :  "  and  going  from  soutn  to 
"north,  they  measured  to  an  arroyo  called  'Holon,'  where 
"  is  another  forest  of  redwoods  called  '  Corte  Madera  de  San 


149 

^  Pablo/  ninety  ^90)  CDi'deles  of  fifty  (50)  varus."  With  the 
same  scale,  Exhibit  "  S.  R.  T.  No.'  15,"  measure  from  the 
point  just  marked  "  G"  by  you,  north,  in  accordance  with 
the  quotation  from  the  act  of  juridical  possession  just  given, 
^nd  show  on  the  plat  of  the  official  Ransom  survey  where 
the  termination  of  that  course  will  be,  and  designate  it  on 
<said  plat.  A.  A  line  starting  at  said  point  "C"  and  running 
due  north  ninety  (90)  cordeles,  will  reach  a  point  which  I 
now  designate  in  lead  pencil  by  the  letter  "  D,"  which  point 
is  about  six  (6)  chains  north  of  the  arroyo  "  Holon,"  and  is 
situated  on  lands  marked  "  Punta  de  Quentin ''  on  said 
official  plat. 

Q.  74.  Starting  from  the  point  on  the  official  survev 
marked  ^' C.  M.  P.  177"  and  ^^S.  Q.  1858"  with  the  same 
scale  measure  easterly  towards  Post  290,  the  distance  of  94 
cordeles,  and  designate  on  the  official  map  the  end  ot  the 
94  cordeles.  A.  I  have  done  so,  and  designated  the  point 
in  pencil  by  the  letter  "  E,"  which  is  near  course  266  in  said 
official  map. 

Q.  75,  Take  the  plat  of  the  Mathewson  survey,  compare 
it  with  the  official  plat  of  the  Ransom  survey,  and  designate 
on  the  latter  the  position  of  Station  34  of  the  Mathewson 
survey.  A.  Station  34  of  the  Mathewson  survey  cones- 
ponds  very  closely  to  the  station  marked  Post  613  on  the 
Ransom  survey. 

Q.  76.  What  is  the  distance  in  cordeles  from  the  point 
marked  "  E  "  by  you,  to  Post  613,  on  the  official  plat?  A. 
I  tind  the  distance  between  said  points  to  be  46  cordeles, 
using  said  scale  marked  Ex.  S.  R.  T.  16. 

Q.  78.  What  is  the  distance  bj^  the  same  scale  in  corde- 
les, from  Post  613  to  the  point  marked  by  you  '- 1)  "  on  the 
Holon  r     A.     About  157  cordeles. 

Q.  79.  What  is  the  entire  distance  rurmiiig  straight 
lines  around  by  the  points  designated  by  you  in  the  answers 
from  questions  72  to  79  inclusive  ?     A.*    403  cordeles. 

Q.  80.  How^  does  that  correspond  w^ith  the  sum  of  the 
distances  stated  in  the  act  of  juridical  possession  ?  A.  It 
is  three  cordeles  more  than  said  sum. 

Q.  81.  Please  give  the  area  comprised  within  the  lines 
designated  by  you  in  answer  to  questions  272  to  279  inclu- 
sive. A.  The  area  comprised  within  straight  lines  dra^vn 
to  the  points  designated  in  said  questions  is  approximately 
3472  acres. 

Q.  82.  Add  thereto  the  area  of  the  peninsulas  lying  south 
ot  the  line  E  C,  as  designated  by  you.  A.  That  will  add 
about  400  acres  ;  making  a  total  of  3872  acres. 


150 

Q.  83.  Add  thereto  the  area  lying  west  of  the  line  C, 
D.,  as  designated  by  yon,  and  between  that  and  the  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio,  taking  for  the  purpose  of  this  last 
measurement  the  township  map  'No.  1,  K  R.  6  W.  A.  The 
area  of  the  land  designated  as  public  land  of  said  Tp.  rnap^ 
and  lying  west  of  the  line  designated  by  me  as  running  from 
C  to  D  is  about  630  acres,  which,  added  to  the  last  quan- 
tity, makes  4,502  acres,  or  a  little  over  one  square  league. 

Q.  84.  The  witness  is  shown  a  document  addressed  by  Wil- 
lis Drummond,  Commissioner,  from  the  General  Land  Office 
of  Washington,  D.  C,  dated  Feb'y  5th,  1872,  and  addressed  to 
J.  R.  Hardenbergh,  Esq.,  U.  S.  Surveyor-General,  San  Fran- 
cisco, Cal.,  and  is  asked  :  Do  you  recognize  the  document 
handed  you,  and  what  is  it  ?  A.  It  appears  to  be  a  com- 
munication from  the  Commissioner  of  General  Land  Office 
to  the  U.  S   Surveyor-General  for  California. 

Q.  85.  What  is  the  purpose  of  it?  A.  It  seems  to  con- 
tain instructions  to  the  Surveyor-General  in  regard  to  fixing 
the  eastern  boundary  line  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio,  a!id  directing  a  new  survey  to  be  made  to  conform 
to  the  juridical  possession. 

The  document  referred  to  in  preceding  question  is  now 
offered  by  Peter  Gardner,  and  marked  Ex.  "Peter  Gardner 
No.  1." 

Q.  86.  How  does  the  line  from  the  point  designated  by 
you,  from  E  on  the  official  plat  to  Post  613  on  same  plat, 
correspond  with  the  line  designated  in  said  Ex.  Peter  Gard- 
ner Ko.  1,  on  the  3d  page  thereof,  in  the  following  words 
and  figures  :  ''A  line  running  northeasterly  from  near  me- 
ander course  105  to  near  meander  course  24,  as  said  courses 
are  marked  on  the  nlat  of  Mathewson's  survey  executed  in 
1858  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Sharp,  as  irrelevant  and  immaterial. 

A.     It  crosses  it. 

Q.  87.  At  what  angle.  A.  At  an  angle  of  about  30  de- 
grees. 

Q.  88.  What  difference  in  areas  would  it  make  if  the 
line  A  B  had  been  used  by  you,  in  answering  the  late  ques- 
tions, instead  of  the  line  from  E  to  post  613  f  A.  By  adopt- 
ing the  line  A  B  the  area  would  be  decreased  about  40  acres. 

Q.  89.  In  approximate  estimates  like  the  present,  would 
you  not  consider  these  two  lines  as  leading  to  about  the 
same  results?  A.  Yes,  either  line  would  give  approx- 
imately the  same  area. 

Q.  90.     You  mean  they  correspond  nearly.     A.  Yes. 


151 

Adjourned  until  Thursday  morning  (2Tth  Jan'y),  at  10:80 

A,  M. 


Thursday,  January^  27th,  1876.  Court  met  pursuant  to 
adjournment,  and  adjourned  until  Tuesday,  Feb'y  1st,  1876, 
at  10.30  A.  M. 


Tuesday,  Feb'y  1st,  1876.  Examination  resumed.  All 
present 

Gross-Examination  of  G.  F.  Allardt  Resumed, 

Witness  here  explains  that  Deputy  Mathewson  had  with 
him  the  translation  of  the  juridical  measurements  when  he 
made  the  siirv^ey  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio 
in  1858,  and  I  read  them  at  the  time. 

Q.  91.  When  measuring  the  iirst  call  of  the  paper  above 
referred  to,  what,  it*  anything,  did  you  find  to  indicate  the 
termination  ot*  the  original  line  of  the  Spanish  survey  in 
that  direction  ?  A.  Deputy  Mathewson  did  not  attempt  to 
survey  according  to  the  separate  calls  of  the  juridical 
measurement.  As  I  understood  it,  he  made  use  of  the 
jurid'cal  measurements  in  connection  with  other  papers,  to 
determine  exterior  boundaries. 

Q.  92.  Please  state,  if  you  now  can,  what  papers  Mathew- 
son had  with  him  at  the  time  of  making  the  survey.  A.  I 
found  in  my  office  an  envelope  endorsed,  in  Mathewson 's 
handwriting,  "  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  heirs  of  Juan 
Read,  one  square  league,"  which  envelope  contains  the 
papers  that  said  Mathewson  had  with  him  when  he  made 
the  survey,  according  to  the  best  of  my  recollection.  The 
papers  are,  1st,  Instructions  from  the  Surveyor-General 
MandeviUe,  dated  Sept.  22d,  1858.  2d.  The  report  of  juri- 
dical measurements  and  possession,  in  the  handwriting  of 
said  Mathewson  ;  also,  in  the  same  handwriting,  the  tes- 
timony of  Jose  de  la  Cruz  Sanchez  and  Toraas  Jeremias. 
3d.  A  paper,  in  handwriting  of  said  Mathewson,  with  this 
heading :  "  497.  Heirs  of  Juan  Read  vs.  The  United  States." 
4th.  The  opinion  of  the  Board  of  Commissioners  for  the 
place  called  "  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ;"  also,  in  the  hand- 
writing of  said  Mathewson,  on  the  back  of  which  is  attached 
the  diseno  of  said  rancho.  5th.  A  diseno  of  said  rancho  or 
copy  thereof. 

Q.  93.     How  many  of  those  papers,  and  which  of  them, 


152 

made  the  official  instructions  under  which  Matbewson  was 
to  act  ?     A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  94.  From  3'Our  experience  as  a  surveyor,  whicli 
would  you  think  were  embraced  in  the  official  instructions? 
A.  The  instructions  themselves  and  the  diseno ;  but  the  sur- 
veyor would  be  guided  more  or  less  by  all  the  papers  re- 
ferring to  the  rancho,  for  the  reason  that  no  single  paper  is 
sufficiently  definite  for  his  guidance  in  this  case. 

Mr.  Gardner  offers  in  evidence  the  instructions  of  the 
Surveyor-General. 

Q.  95.  Did  you,  in  surveying  any  line  with  Mathewson, 
look  for  any  monument  spoken  of  in  the  papers  of  juridical 
possession  ;  and  if  so,  did  you  find  any  ?  A.  I  do  not  re- 
member whether  Matbewson  looked  for  any  monuments, 
but  I  am  certain  that  I  did  not  find  any,  ♦except  it  be  tlie 
natural  objects  referred  to  in  the  papers;  we  found  and  lo- 
cated Jiian  Read's  adobe  house. 

Q.  96.  In  surveying  the  second  call  of  the  juridical 
measurements,  or  that  course  and  distance  which  you  sur- 
veyed to  represent  that  second  call,  what  determined  the 
course  and  distance  that  you  ran  from  north  to  south?  A. 
As  I  have  stated,  I  do  not  think  that  Mathewson  attem[)ted 
to  retrace  the  juridical  measurements  on  the  ground;  but 
he  made  a  survey  of  all  the  meanders  of  the  peninsula,  and 
ran  a  closing  line  on  the  west  end  for  the  purpose  of  map- 
ping the  same  on  paper,  and  then  applying  a  scale  to  com- 
pare the  calls  of  juridical  measurement  with  his  survey. 

Q.  97.  Were  you  with  Mathewson  when  he  was  survey- 
ing that  land,  both  his  preliminary  and  final  surveys?  A.  I 
was  in  his  employ  and  directed  the  field  work  ;  Mathewson 
was  on  the  ground  only  a  portion  of  the  time. 

Q.  98.  Were  you  with  him  most  of  the  time  that  he  was 
on  the  ground,  and  how  much  of  the  time?  A.  Most  of  the 
time  ;  "but  he  frequently  left  the  party  and  went  to  San 
Francisco  or  elsewhere. 

Q.  99.  Was  any  attempt  made,  under  the  Mathewson 
survey,  to  reconcile  the  calls  of  the  juridical  possession  with 
the  instructions  for  the  survey  ?  A.  I  cannot  state;  but  I 
know  that  Mathewson  frequently  consulted  the  papers  he 
had  with  him. 

Q.  100.  Could  any  accurate  survey  of  this  rancho  be 
made  by  following  the  calls  of  the  juridical  possession  ?  A. 
The  calls  in  the  juridical  possession,  where  courses  and 
distances  are  given,  are  impossible  to  follow,  being,  if 
literally  taken,  a  mathematical  absurdity. 


153 

Q.  101.  Could  an  accurate  survey  of  this  rancho  be 
made  by  following  the  artificial  nionunients  mentioned  in 
the  papers  of  the  juridical  possession,  as  placed,  or  promised 
to  be  placed,  by  Read  ?  A.  Straight  lines  could  be  run 
from  monument  to  monument ;  but  whether  such  straight 
lines  would  be  an  accurate  survey  of  the  rancho,  I  am  un- 
able to  decide. 

Q.  102.  Where  are  those  artificial  monuments?  A.  I 
<io  not  know  ;  I  never  found  thern, 

Q.  103.  Have  you  ever  looked  for  them  ?  A.  I  don't 
think  I  ever  have. 

Q.  104.  Taking  the  juridical  possession,  could  an  ac- 
curate survey  of  this  rancho  be  made  by  following  the  calls 
for  natural  monuments  therein  mentioned  ?  By  juridical 
possession  I  mean  the  paper  commencing  "  being  in  the 
iields  and  lands  pertaining  to  the  rancho,"  on  page  20  of 
Exhibit  S.  11.  T.  No.  9,  and  ending  on  page  24.  A.  If  the 
natural  monuments  were  pointed  out  to  the  Surveyor,  it 
would  serve  to  give  him  an  idea  of  the  general  location  of 
the  rancho  ;  but  it  would  be  mere  guess  work  to  attempt  to 
make  an  accurate  survey  from  such  data  alone. 

Court  here  adjourns  until  2  o'clock. 


Court  re-assembled  at  2  o'clock,  pursuant  to  adjourn- 
ment. 

The  official  plat  of  the  Ransom  survey  and  a  paper, 
marked  on  the  back  "  Expediente  IsTo.  27,"  already  in  the 
case  as  Exhibit ,  are  shown  the  witness. 

Q.  105.  Do  you  recognize  on  the  two  maps  now  shown 
you  the  point  of  San  Quentiu  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  10(5.     And  the  Point  Tiburon  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  107.  On  the  ancient  map,  are  there  any  streams  repre- 
sented between  those  two  points,  and  if  so,  how  many  ?  A. 
There  are  two  streams  represented. 

Q.  108.  Do  you  recognize  on  the  diseno  (or  said  ancient 
map)  the  lines  claimed  to  represent  the  boundaries  on  the 
north  and  westerly  of  this  rancho  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  109.  ^  Nearest  which  of  the  two  streams  between 
Point  de  San  Quentin  and  Point  Tiburon  does  the  northerly 
of  those  boundary  lines  ruii  ?  A..  It  runs  nearest  to  the 
most  southerly  of  those  two  streams. 

Q.  110.  Does  it  approach  the  most  northerly  of  those 
two  streams  ?     A.  No  ;  it  is  some  distance  from  it. 

Q.  111.     On  which  side  of  the  most  southerly  of  those 


154 

streams  does  it  run  ?     A.  Partly  on  the  south   side,  partly 
on  the  north  side,  and  partly  in  the  stream  itself. 

Q.  112.  In  what  part  of  its  course  does  it  correspond 
with  the  stream  itself?     A.  Near  the  head  of  the  stream. 

Q.  113.  Do  you  recognize  on  the  diseno  the  b  ly  formed 
by  Punto  de  Tiburon  and  the  Piin::a  de  Caballos,  whichy 
running  inland  from  east  to  west,  ends  in  a  short  creek  and 
Canada  which  follows  the  same  direction;  if  so,  what  is  it 
now  called,  and  is  it  marked  on  the  official  plat  ?  A.  I  rec- 
Qormze  on  the  diseno  a  bay  answering  to  that  description, 
and  it  is  evidently  intended  to  represent  what  is  now  called 
"Richardson's  Bay,"  and  so  marked  on  the  official  plat. 

Q.  114.  How  many  streams  are  represented  on  the  di- 
seno as  entering  the  head  or  western  end  of  said  bay  ?  A. 
Two  streims;  one  at  the  head  of  that  bay  and  another  a 
little  t  >  the  nortti  of  the  first  stream. 

Q.   115.     Is  there  any  peculiarity  in  the  inking  of  that 
diseiio   that  strikes  your  attention  ;    and  if  so,  point  them 
out  ?     A.  The  topography  of  the  -diseiio  seems  to  be  drawn 
with  one  kind  of  ink,  while  some  of  the  words  and  some  of 
the  lines  seem  to  be  made  with  a  different  kind  of  ink. 

Mr.  B.  S.  Brooks  objects  to  the  question  as  not  being  the 
best  testimony,  Mr.  Allardt  not  being  an  expert,  as  also  not 
being  cross-examination,  no  allusion  having  been  made  to  it 
in  the  direct  examination. 

Q.  116.  What  experience  have  you  had  as  a  draughts- 
man and  map-maker,  if  any  ?  A.  I  consider  myself  a  com- 
petent draughtsman,  having  had  many  years'  experience  in 
drawing  topouTaphical  maps. 

Q.  Il7.  Have  you  had  much  experience  in  the  examina- 
tion of  Mexican  or  Spanish  diserios?  A.  Yes,  I  have  had 
occasion  to  examine  a  large  number  of  disenos. 

Q.  118.  Is  the:-e  anything  on  the  face  of  this  diseno  to 
indicate  that  it  was  intended  originally  as  the  diseno  of  the 
Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  or  ranch)  of  Juan  Read? 
A.  ]S"either  the  words  "  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  "  or  the 
words  *'Juan  Read"'  appear  on  this  diseno.  The  diseno 
appears  to  be  a  topographical  sketch  of  the  lands,  points  and 
islands  on  San  Francisco  Bay  between  San  Franc'sco  and 
San  Rafael. 

Q.  119.  How  well  are  you  acquainted  with  the  Bay  of 
San  Francisco  and  its  adjacent  shores,  and  islands,  and  rocks, 
between  the  latitude  of  the  Presidio  of  San  ^'I'ancisco  and 
Yerba  Buena  Island  on  the  south,  and  the  latitude  of  San 
Rafael  on  the  north?     State  your  acquaintance  with  consider- 


155 

able  minuteness.  A.  I  am  well  acquainted  with  the  Bay 
of  San  Francisco  between  those  points,  for  the  reason  that  I 
ma'le  a  detailed  siirv-ey  of  the  entire  shore  line  of  the  bay 
for  the  Board  of  Tide  Land  Commissioners. 

Q.  120.  What  are  the  dots  on  said  diseno,  just  to  the 
right  of  a  line  drawn  from  Punta  de  San  Pablo  to  Isla  de 
Los  Angeles  intended  to  represent?  A.  There  are  six 
dots,  and  they  represent  what  are  now  known  as  '^  Castro 
Rocks." 

Q.  121.  What  are  the  rounded  spots  between  "Punta 
de  San  Pablo"  and  "Punta  de  San  Quentin  "  intended  to 
represent  ?  A.  There  are  two  of  those  spots  near  "  Punta 
de  San  Pablo"  and  they  represent  two  islands  known  as 
''The  Brothers." 

Q.  122.  What  are  the  figures  in  the  hay,  which  you  called 
"Richardson's  Bay"  "J,"  "J,"  "1,"  '' IJ,"  "2,"  "8,"  "7" 
and  the  others  between  the  figure  last  named  and  "Punta 
de  San  Pablo  "  and  "  Yas.  de  Marin"  intended  to  represent, 
if  you  know  ?  A.  From  the  fact  that  said  fi.gures  corre- 
spond approximately  to  the  depth  of  water  shown  on  the 
Coast  Survey  maps,  I  take  then  to  be  soundings  showing 
the  depth  of  water,  in  fathoms. 

Q.  123.  Upon  the  diseno,  do  you  see  the  words  "  Ter- 
reno  que  solicita  D.  Juan  Read  al  otro  lado  del  Pto.  de  S. 
Francisco,"  and  the  word  "  Sausalito  ?"     A.     I  do. 

Q.  124.  Have  you  had  experience  in  handwriting  and 
ink  and  the  use  of  it,  enough  to  enable  you  to  judge  of  difier- 
ences  in  them  or  either  of  them  ?  A.  I  have  had  consider- 
able experience  in  writing  and  drawing,  but  do  not  consider 
myself  an  expert  in  such  matters. 

Q.  125.  How  much  experience  have  you  had?  A.  I 
have  frequently  examined  old  maps  while  following  the 
business  of  surveying  for  the  last  twenty  years. 

Q.  126.  Do  you  know,  and  can  you  state  how  different 
kinds  of  ink  will  manifest  themselves  to  the  eye  ?  A.  The 
question  appears  indefinite  to  me. 

Q.  127.  Do  you  see  any  difference  in  the  ink  used  in 
making  words  and  lines  on  said  diseno  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  128.  State  what  difference  in  the  ink  you  see,  and 
where.  A.  Toe  to[>ography,  the  soundhigs,  the  word 
"  Sausalito,"  and  the  picture  of  a  house  under  said  word, 
and  tlie  scale  of  the  map,  and  two  straight  lines  bounding 
the  Saucelito  peninsula,  and  the  words  "  Pta  Tiberun " 
(''Tiburon"  being  crossed),  seem  to  be  drawn  with  one 
kind  of  ink ;  while  the  words  "  Corte  Madera,"  •*  Taburon," 


156 

^'Terreno,  que  solicita  D.  Juan  Read  al  otro  lado  del 
Pto.  de  S.  Francisco,"  and  the  straight  lines  bounding  the 
peninsula  of  "  Taburon,"  towards  the  west,  seem  to  be 
drawn  with  another  kind  of  ink;  also,  "Ysla,"  near  the 
island  of  ''  Los  Angeles." 

Q.  129.  Which  seems  to  be  the  earUer,  and  which  the 
later  of  the  inks,  marks  and  writings  you  have  described — 
if  you  can  judge  as  a  map-maker  'i  A.  I  cannot  judge  as 
to  the  age  of  the  different  inks,  marks  and  writings. 

Q.  130.  Does  that  diseno  appear  to  have  been  made  as 
a  map  of  any  particular  rancho,  or  for  some  other  purpose 
originally  ?     A.  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  131.  Is  it  usual  in  disenos  to  give  soundings  of  large 
bodies  of  water  in  their  neighborhood  ?  A.  I  never  saw 
any  other  diseno  that  gave  soundini>;s. 

Q.  132.  Is  it  customary  in  disenos  to  represent,  as 
minutely  as  in  this  paper  now  under  consideration,  the 
small  rocks  and  islands,  and  headlands  at  a  distance  from 
the  land  to  which  the  disenos  appertain?  A.  As  far  as  I 
know  it  is  not. 

Q.  133.  Suppose  the  paler  ink  marks  and  writings  on 
that  map  were  not  upon  it,  what  would  that  diseno  sc-m  to 
you  to  be  intended  to  represent?  A.  It  would  seem  to 
represent  a  hydrographic  map  of  a  part  of  San  Francisco 
Bay. 

Q.  134.  Were  you  present  when  Mr.  Juan  Read,  the 
grantee  of  the  Rancho  "  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,"  and 
Mr.  Guillamo  Richardson,  the  grantee  of  the  Rancho 
"  Saucelito,"  were  described  as  "ex-sailors"  by  a  witness 
in  this  hearing  ?     A.  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  135.  Is  there  anything  on  the  face  of  this  diseno  to 
indicate  that  it  was  not  intended  originally  as  the  diseno  of 
the  Rancho  "  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,"  but  for  some 
other  purpose  ?  A.  It  would  be  a  mere  matter  of  opinion 
for  me  to  answer  that  question. 

Q.  136.  Suppose  the  lighter  colored  straight  lines  bound- 
ing "  Tiburon  "  on  the  west,  and  which  you  have  testified 
are  made  with  a  different  ink  from  the  topography  of  this 
diseno  were  omitted,  would  there  then  be  anything,  on  the 
face  of  this  diseno,  which  could  lead  you,  as  a  to;  ographer, 
a  surveyor,  or  a  draughtsman,  to  suspect  that  it  was  intended 
as  a  diseno  to  accompany  a  petition  for  a  grant  of  land  called 
''Corte  Madera  del  Presidio?"  A.  To  answer  that  ques- 
tion I  must  know  the  nature  of  the  petition. 

Q.  137.     I  emphasize  the  words  :  "  on  the  face  of  this  di- 


157 

^cno,^"  in  the  previous  question,  and  request  you  to  answer 
«iy  last  question  ?     A.  E"o, 

Court  here  adjourned  until  10:30  a.  m.  to-morrow,  Febru- 
ary 2d,  1876. 


Pursuant  to  adjournment  Court  met  at  10:: 30  a,  m.  Wedites- 
'day,  February  2d,  1876.     Ail  present. 

Cross-examination  of  G.  F.  Allardt  resumed. 

A  Spanish  diseno  or  map,  marked  on  the  back  thereof: 
***  104.  Exhibit  1,  to  the  deposition  of  Thos.  Henderson  in 
•case  E^o.  104,  Richardson's  claim,  H.  L  T.,  Com'r,"  is  shown 
-Nvitness,  and  he  is  asked — 

Q.  138.  Does  this  diseno  represent  the  land  in  question 
in  this  hearins: — the  rancho  of  Read  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  139.  Will  you  compare  this  diseno  with  the  paper 
marked  "  Expediente  N(».  27,"  which  you  were  examining 
yesterday,  and  state  which  of  the  two  represents  with  most 
accuracy  the  rancho  now  in  question  ?  A.  That  depends 
upon  the  boundaries  of  the  rancho. 

Q.  140.  On  which  of  the  twodisenos  is  the  shore  line  of 
the  bay  which  you  call  "Richardson's  Bay,"  of  '' Racco*  n 
Straits,"  and  of  San  Francisco  Bay  most  accurately  deline- 
ated ?  A.  Both  disenos  are  extremely  imperfect,  being 
mere  sketches;  but  that  marked  ''104.  Exhibit  1,  to  the 
deposition  of  Thos.  Henderson,  in  case  I^o.  104,  Richard- 
son's claim.  H.  I.  T,,  Com'r,"  is  more  intelligible  than  the 
other,  inasmuch  as  it  indicates  roughly,  "Peninsula  Island 
and  Strawberry  Point,"  while  in  the  other  those  features  are 
not  shown. 

Q.  141.  Examine  the  shore  line  and  topography  at  the 
head  and  near  the  head  of  Richardson's  Bay  on  this  diseno, 
marked  ''  104.  Exhibit  1,  to  the  deposition  of  Thos.  Hen- 
derson, in  case  No.  104,  Richardson's  claim.  H.  I.  T., 
Com'r,"  being  the  diseno  referred  to  in  question  95,  page 
121  of  this  testimony,  and  in  the  answer  to  that  question,  a 
traced  copy  of  which  diseiio  is  in  said  question,  stated  to  be 
filed  therein,  which  copy  Peter  Gardner  now  asks  shall  be 
marked  "  B.  S.  Brooks,  No.  2,"  and  state  whether  said  to- 
pography and  shore  line  are  not  represented  with  great  ac- 
curacy and  minuteness,  for  a  Spanish  diseno  ?  A.  Yes;  the 
topography  at  the  head  of  Richardson's  Bay  is  hereon  shown 
with  considerable  accuracy;  that  is  to  say,  approximately 
correct!;  more  so  than  is  usual  on  disenos. 

Q.  142.     Is  there  anything  on  this  last-named  diseno  to 


158 

indicate  the  points  of  the  compass,  and  if  yes,  state  what  it 
is,  and  whether  it  shows  those  points  with  correctness.  A^ 
There  is;  it  is  a  circle  with  a  meridian  line  drawn  through 
it,  and  a  line  at  ri^^ht  angles  to  the  same.  Slid  meridian 
line  corresponds  very  closely  to  the  true  rcteridian  compared 
with  the  topography  on  said  disefio. 

Q,  143.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  zigzag  or  scalloped 
line  at  the  head  of  Richardson's  Bay;  I  mean  the  line  run- 
ning through  the  letter  "  D  "  in  the  word  "  Madera  ?  "  A. 
This  line  evidently  is  intended  to  represent  the  outer  line  of 
the  salt  marsh,  or  the  line  of  ordinary|high  tide  of  Richard- 
son's Bay. 

Q,  144,  Is  any  care,  skill,  and  accuracy  8ho^vn  in  de^ 
lineating  the  water-courses  in  the  Read  rancho^as  shown  on 
this  diseno,  towards  the  western  part  thereof?  A.  I  think 
the  water-courses  are  shown  approximately  correct,  con- 
sidering them  to  be  drawn  from  an  eye-sketch. 

Q.  145.  Are  not  the  principal  curves  of  the  shore  line 
shown  or  suggested  with  a  considerable  degree  of  accuracy 
on  this  disefio,  in  the  part  marked  thereon  ''  Rancho  de 
Read  "  and  "  Tiburon  V  "  A.  The  delineati(m  of  the  shore 
line  on  this  diseiio  is  sufficiently  accurate  to  enable  a  person 
acquainted  with  the  land  to  identify  the  principal  features 
and  b^alieiit  points,  such  as  bays,  inlets,  and  points,  with  coi>- 
siderable  certainty, 

Q.  146.  Please  look  at  the  official  r/lat  of  the  Ransom 
survey,  and  state  whether  there  is  any  considerable  curve 
and  point  in  the  shore  line  of  San  Francisco  Bay  east,  or 
very  nearly  so,  tl*om  the  old  house  of  Juan  Read;  and  if  so, 
state  what  they  are.  A.  There  is  a  curve  bearing  about 
east  from  Read's  house,  which  is  a  well-marked  feature  in 
the  shore  line  of  San  Francisco  Bay  ;  also  a  point  of  land. 
The  curve  is  situated  just  south  of  California  City  Point; 
and  the  point  I  refer  to  is  marked  "  California  City  Point  " 
on  this  official  plat  of  the  Ransom  survey. 

Q.  147.  Examine  the  diseno  last  spoken  of,  and  state 
whether  or  no  there  are  a  point  and  curve  in  the  shore  line 
of  San  Francisco  Bay  delineated  thereon  as  lying  East,  or 
nearly  so,  of  the  old  Read  house?  A.  Such  a  point  and 
curves  are  shown  on  said  diseiio. 

Q.  148.  Does  that  curve  you  have  mentioned  form  a  bay, 
a  cape,  or  any  projection  of  land  into  San  Francisco  Bay  ? 
A.  Said  curve  forms  a  bay. 

Q.  149.  Is  there  more  than  one  bay  of  a  marked  char- 
acter along  that  shore,  between  "  California  City  Point  "  and 


159 

the  most  easterly  point  of  what  is  marked  "PoiDt  Tiburon  '^ 
on  the  official  plat  ?     A.  There  is  not. 

Q.  150.  Is  there  any  marked  topographical  feature  in 
California  City  Point  that  you  can  identify  readily  ?  A. 
The  land  back  of  CanK)rnia  City  Point  ascends  rapidly  to 
the  main  ridge,  which  forms  the  back-bone  of  the  peninsula 
of  Tiburon. 

Here  a  recess  was  taken  until  2  o'clock,  p.  M. 


Court  re-assembled  at  2  o'clock. 

Q.  151.  A  map  called  "Gardner's  Map  of  the  Raucho 
*Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,'  with  its  topography  and 
surroundings,  the  Mathewson  survey  lines,  etc.,"  is  here 
shown  witness,  and  he  is  asked  :  What  does  this  map  repre- 
sent ?  A.  This  map  represents  on  a  large  scale  the  Tibu- 
ron peninsula,  extending  from  Raccoon  Straits  westerly  to 
the  easterly  slopes  of  the  Taraalpais  Mountain  and  the 
head  waters  of  the  Arroyo  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio 
and  the  Arrovo  Holon.  The  map  also  contains  a  part  of 
the  rancho  ''  Punta  do  San  Quentin,"  and  a  part  of  the  rancho 
Saucelito. 

Q.  152.  Please  compare  this  Gardner's  map  with  the 
official  plat  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  by 
Ransom,  and  locate  and  mark  upon  this  map  the  points 
marked  bv  j^ou  in  your  preceding  testimony  on  said  official 
plat  in  pencil,  "A,"  "  B,"  "  C,"^*' D,"  and  "  E,"  also  Post 
613,  station  C.  M.  P.  177  and  S.  Q.  1858,  mentioned  in  your 
previous  testimony ;  also  the  point  called  "California  City 
Point ;"  also  Richardson's  Bay.  A.  I  have  marked  those 
points  on  this  map  in  red  ink,  with  the  corresponding  let- 
ters and  words. 

Q.  153.  Please  compare  the  two  maps  mentioned  in 
question  152  and  see  whether  they  correspond  with  each 
other  so  far  as  the  locations  of  the  points  and  objects  named 
in  question  152,  and  the  principal  features  of  the  exterior 
lines  on  the  official  plat  are  concerned  ;  and  if  so,  state  the 
same.  A.  The  points  and  objects  just  named  in  question 
152  correspond  in  the  two  maps  and  the  exterior  boundaries, 
as  far  as  the  nicandor3  lire  ^jracticLily  identical  in  the  two 
maps,  but  the  line  representing  the  western  boundary  on 
the  official  map  is  not  shown. 

Q.  154.  Please  designate  that  western  boundary  men- 
tioned in  your  last  answer,  upon  the  Gardner  Map,  and 
mark  it  with  appropriate  letters,  and  state  how  you  do  it- 


160 

A.  I  have  designated  said  western  boundary  on  said  Gard- 
ner's map  by  a  dotted  red  line,  "F  G*' 

Q.  155.  Does  the  hne  "  F  G,''  just  marked  by  you, 
correspond  with  the  first  call  of  the  Juridical  possession? 
A.  I  can't  say. 

Q.  156.  "Why  cannot  you  say?  A.  I  do  not  know,  of 
my  own  knowledge,  where  the  initial  point  of  said  first  call, 
viz.,  the  "solar,"  is  located  ;  nor  do  I  know  in  what  exact 
direction  such  measurement  was  made  at  the  time  when 
juridical  possession  was  given. 

Q.  157.  Can  you  determine  the  bearing  and  distance 
from  the  letter  "A"  just  made  by  you  on  the  ''  Gardner 
Map  "  to  the  Punta  de  San  Quentin  and  place  a  red  arrow 
pointing  in  the  direction  thereof?  A.  I  have  done  so  and 
represented  the  bearing  by  an  arrow  in  red  ink,  and  have 
marked  thereon  the  approximate  distance  from  the  point 
"A"  to  the  "Punta  de  San  Quentin,"  viz.:  170  chains,  or 
2J  miles. 

Q.  158.  Look  at  the  diseno,  marked  "Expediente  No. 
27,"  the  official  plat  by  Ransom,  and  "Gardner's  Map," 
and  state  whether  the  stream  marked  on  said  diseno  as 
nearest  to  Punta  de  San  Quentin,  appears  on  the  other 
maps  mentioned?  A.  Said  stream  seems  to  correspond 
with  the  large  stream  or  slough  shown  on  the  other  two 
maps,  but  whether  it  is  that  stream  or  not,  is  on  my  part  a 
mere  matter  of  conjecture. 

Q.  159.  Please  mark  on  the  Gardner  Map,  in  red  ink, 
with  the  three  letters  "H  H  H"  the  stream,  which  you  con- 
jecture to  represent  the  stream  which  is  shown  in  said  di- 
seno as  nearest  to  "  Punta  de  San  Quentin  ?"  A.  T  have 
so  marked  said  stream. 

Q.  160.  Please  examine  the  diseno  of  the  common  lands 
of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Rafael  found  in  Vol.-  X  of  Missions  of 
the  original  Spanish  archives  and  state  what  there  is  upon 
that  diseno  to  show  the  boundaries  of  those  lands  mentioned 
in  the  title  of  that  diseno? 

Mr.  Sharp,  for  claimants,  objects  to  the  question  on. the 
ground  that  it  is  irrelevant,  immaterial,  and  foreign  to  the 
facts  at  issue. 

A.  The  Mission  Lands  of  San  Rafael,  on  this  diseno, 
seem  to  be  bounded  by  a  yellowish  brown-colored  line. 

Q.  161.  Do  you  recognize  upon  said  diseno,  the  Peak  of 
Tamalpais  and  Punta  de  San  Quentin? 

Mr.  Sharp,  for  claimants,  makes  same  objection  to  this  as 
to  question  160. 


161 

,  ,A,  I  see  on  this  diseno  a  figure  representing  a  mountain 
wiiich  from  its  location  may  be  intended  to  represent  the 
Tamalpais  Mountain  ;  Punta  de  San  Quentin  is  shown  on 
this  diseiio  and  can  be  easily  recognized  from  its  position 
^nd  form  and  by  the  word  Quentin  marked  thereon. 

Q.  162.  State  whether  or  no  the  yellowish-brown  boundary 
line,  mentioned  in  answer  to  question  160,  touches  and  con- 
nects those  two  objects.     A.  It  does. 

Q.  163.  Starting  from  what  you  say  might  represent  the 
summit  of  Tamalpais,  what  is  the  general  course  or  trend 
of  that  boundary  line  towards  Point  San  Quentin  for  the 
first  two  and  one-quarter  inches  of  that  distance  ?  A.  About 
north  eighty  degrees  east,  as  compared  with  the  meridian 
line  marked  on  said  diseno. 

Q.  164,  Do  you  recognize  on  said  diseno  any  streams  or 
other  natural  objects  by  which  you  can  fix  the  true  direction 
of  that  line  approximately  ?  A.  I  do  not — no  definite  ob- 
ject that  I  am  acquainted  with. 

Q.  165,  Taking  the  bearing  of  the  extremities  of  the 
peninsulas,  marked  on  said  diseno  Saucelito  and  Tiburon, 
and  your  knowledge  of  the  true  location  of  them  as  your 
guide,  would  the  meridian  as  designated  on  that  diseno  be 
correct,  or  if  not,  how  far  would  it  differ  from  the  true 
meridian  ?  A.  The  true  course  between  said  extremities  is 
about  north  thirty  degrees  east,  while  on  the  diseno  the 
course  between  the  same  extremities  referred  to  the  meri- 
dian shown  on  said  diseno  is  about  north  fifty  degrees  east, 
a  difference  of  twenty  degrees. 

G.  F.  ALLAEDT. 

Court  here  adjourned  until  Tuesday,  the  8th  of  February, 
at  10:30  o'clock  a,  m. 


Pursuant  to  adjournment.  Court  met  at  10:30 Ja.  m.,  Tues- 
day, February  8th,  1876.     All  present. 

Cross- Examination  of  G.  F,  Allardt  Resumed. 


Court  here  adjourned  until  Tuesday,  15th  of  February, 
at  10:30  o'clock  a.  m. 


Tuesday,  Feb'y  15,  1876.     On  motion  of  xMullen  &  Hyde, 
case  adjourned  until  Wednesday,  Feb'y  23d,  1876,  at  10:30 

A.  M, 


162 

Pursuant  to  adjournment,  Court  met  at  10:30  a.  u.^ 
Wednesday,  Feb'y  23d,  1876.     All  present. 

Present,  Hon.  II.  G.  Rollins,  U.  S.  Surveyor-General. 

Re-Direct  Examination  of  G.  F,  Allardt  by  Mr,  Shanklin, 

Q.  1.  Were  you  in  the  field  with  Mr.  Mathewson  when 
he  made  the  official  survey  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera 
del  Presidio  ?     A.  I  was. 

Q.  2.  Were  your  relations  to  him  in  connection  with 
that  survey  such  as  to  enable  you  to  know  what  official 
documents,  bearing  upon  the  juridical  possession  of  said 
rancho,  he  had  with  him  at  the  time  ?  A.  I  know  of  cer- 
tain documents  he  had  with  him  at  the  time  ;  they  are  the 
same  that  I  have  heretofore  described  in  this  examination^ 
but  I  am  unable  to  state  whether  he  bad  other  documents; 
or  not,  or  whether  he  consulted  such  other  documents-. 

Q.  3.  Please  to  examine  the  portion  of  Exhibit  S.  R.  T. 
;N"o.  9,  relating  to  the  juridical  possession  (not  measurement) 
as  set  forth  in  said  Exhibit,  commencing  with  the  fifth  line 
from  the  bottom  of  page  12,  and  ending  with  the  ninth  line 
on  the  top  of  page  15,  and  state  whether  the  original,  of 
which  this  purports  to  be  a  translation,  or  any  copy  of  the 
translation  thereof,  were  used  by  Mr.  Mathewson  or  yourself 
in  locating  the  westerly  and  northern  boundary  of  the 
Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio.  A.  Neither  the  orig- 
inal of  said  portion  of  Exhibit  S,  R.  T.  No.  9,  described  in 
the  foregoing  question,  or  a  copy  thereof,  is  among  the 
papers  which  1  have  heretofore  described  in  this  examina- 
tion ;  but  I  am  unable  to  state  whether  Mathewson  had 
such  copy  with  him  at  the  time  ;  but  I  do  not  remember  of 
seeing  such  a  paper  at  the  time  of  the  survey. 

Q.  4.  Do  you  know  whether  Mathewson  at  that  time 
referred  to  or  consulted  any  official  paper,  such  as  the  one 
referred  to  in  the  preceding  question  and  answer,  in  mak- 
ing the  survey  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  in 
locating  the  western  or  northern  boundary  of  said  ranch  ? 
A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  5.  In  making  the  survey  of  the  Rancho  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio,  do  you  know  whether  Mr.  Mathewson 
made  his  survey  as  one  for  determining  quantity,  or  with  a 
view  of  following  or  making  a  survey  of  boundaries,  or  for 
determining  the  exterior  boundaries  of  the  ranch  ? 

Objected  to  by  J.  B.  Howard  as  immaterial,  incompetent 
and  not  the  best  evidence,  the  action  of  the  Deputy  being 
governed  by  his  instructions  on  file. 


163 

Mr.  Sharp,  for  claimants,  joins  in  the  same  objecjtions. 

Mr.  Cutter  makes  same  objections. 

A.  Mathewson  made  and  returned  the  survey  for  quan- 
tity ;  he  surveyed  one  square  lea^^ue,  more  or  less,  endeav- 
oring to  locate  the  same  within  the  exterior  boundaries  of 
Sriid  rancho,  and  to  include  Juan  Read's  house  and  the 
solar.  I  know  this  to  be  a  fact,  as  I  assisted  him  in  making 
the  necessary  computations,  and  actually  surveyed  the  line 
under  him,  cutting  off  said  square  league. 

Q.  6.  From  your  knowledge  of  Mr.  Mathewson's  ability 
as  a  surveyor,  and  his  familiarity  in  construing  boundaries 
and  measurements  of  Spanish  grants,  do  you  think  that  if  a 
document  shown  you,  and  heretofore  referred  to  as  com- 
mencing on  page  12  and  ending  on  page  15,  Ex.  S.  R.  T.^ 
No.  9,  and  that  Mr.  Mathewson's  instructions  had  been  to 
make  a  survey  of  the  ranch  according  to  the  exterior  bound- 
aries set  forth  in  such  paper  of  juridical  possession,  that  Mr. 
Mathewson  would  have  located  the  western  and  noithern 
boundaries  of  the  ranch  otherwise  than  as  you  say  you 
would  have  located  them,  viz  :  along  the  Arroyo  Corte  Ma- 
dera del  Presidio  on  the  west,  as  laid  down  on  Ex.S.  R.  T., 
No.  6,  and  the  Arroyo  Holon  on  the  north,  as  laid  down  on 
same  Exhibit  No.  6  V 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Sharp,  for  claimants,  as  immaterial, 
irrelevant  and  incompetent. 

Mr.  Howard  object*,  as  incompetent,  eliciting  the  opinion 
of  the  witness,  and  in  conflict  with  former  testimony  of  this 
witness  wherein  he  stated  substantial! v  that  the  line  indi- 
cated from  Post  C.  M.  P.  181  to  Post  P"  Q.  99  on  the  official 
plat,  and  W.  R.  203  and  continuing  to  W.  R.  204,  was  run 
by  Mathewson  in  1858  as  a  closing  line  and  division  between 
the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  and  the  Rancho 
Punta  de  San  Quentin,  and  for  the  purpose  of  marking  the 
outer  or  western  boundaries  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera 
in  case  said  rancho  should  be  ordered  surveyed  without 
limitation  as  to  quantity  of  one  league. 

A.  I  knew  Mathewson  intimately,  and  believed  that  he 
possessed  very  superior  judgment  in  locating  Spanish  grants  ; 
nearly  all  the  ranchos  which  he  subsequently  surveyed  have 
been  approved  by  the  Surveyor-General  and  the  United  States 
patents  issued  therefor;  whether  he  would  have  located  the 
western  and  northern  boundaries  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera 
del  Presidio  where  I  have  located  them  in  this  testimony  I  am 
unable  to  say;  but  from  my  knowledge  of  him  I  think  he 
would  have  located  them  there  had  he  had  the  same  papers 


164 

before  him.  In  regard  to  objection  of  Mr.  Howard  I  wonid 
saj,  that  I  did  not  testify  that  the  line  from  Post  C.  M.  P.  181 
to  Post  P.  Q.  99,  W.  R.  203,  was  the  division  hne  between 
the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  and  the  Rancho 
Punta  de  San  Qiientiu  ;  nor  did  I  testify  that  Mathewson 
intended  it  to  be  the  western  boundary  of  the  Rancho  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio.  G,  F.  ALLARBT. 

Mr.  Shanklin  closes  the  re-direct  testimony  of  Mr.  Al- 
lardt. 

Court  here  adjourned  until  Saturday,  26th  of  February, 
at  10  o'clock  A.  M. 


Saturday,  Feb.  26th,  1876. 
Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment  and   adjourned  until 
Monday,  Feb.;28th,  1876,  at  10:30  o'clock  a.  m. 


Monday,  Feb.  28th,   1875.     Court  met,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment, at  10:30  a.  m.,  and  adjourned  until  half  past  one. 


Met  at  half  past  one  o'clock. 

S.  L.  Cutter,  counsel  for  Gardner,  stating  that  R.  C.  Hop- 
kins, a  witness,  was  permitted  to  sign  the  precedinoj  part  of 
his  testimony  already  given,  when  he  was  about  leaving  the 
country  temporarily,  moves  that  he  be  permitted  to  proceed 
with  the  cross-examination  of  said  Hopkins. 

Gross- Examination  of  Mr,  Hopkins  by  Mr,  Cutter^  Attorney 
for  Mr.  Gardner. 

Q.  1.  How  far  is  the  rancho  in  question,  Corte  Ma- 
dera del  Presidio,  from  this  city  ?  A.  I  think  that  the 
nearest  point  is  from  six  to  eight  miles. 

Q.  2.  From  your  knowledge  of  the  country  embraced  in 
the  Ransom  survey,  in  what  part  thereof  would  the  occu- 
pants, in  the  j^ear  1834  or  1835, have  cut  madera  or  timber? 
A.  They  would  certainly  have  cut  it  at  the  most  convenient 
point  to  the  place  of  their  settlement. 

Q.  3.  Please  look  at  the  map  S.  R.  T.  l^o.  6,  at  point 
marked  B,  in  red  ink,  and  state  whether  there  is  any  pro- 
bability of  wood  having  been  cut  there  in  1834  or  1835. 

Objected  to  as  immaterial,  on  behalf  of  claimants  ;  and 
not  cross-examination ;  and  also,  as  being  secondary. 

A.     When  the  improvements  of  building,  etc.,  were  made 


165 

"by  Juan  Read  ow  the  rancbo  of  Corte  Madera,  in  1884  or 
1835,  I  presume  that  the  timber  used  therefor  was  cut  at 
the  nearest  and  most  convenient  point  to  said  improvements, 
and  since  I  think  that  good  timber  at  that  time  was  found 
at  a  point  nearei'  to  wbere  said  improvements  were  being 
made,  I  do  not  think  it  probable  that  timber  for  that  pur- 
pose was  cut  at  the  point  in  question. 

Q.  4.  In  answering  question  55,  page  102,  of  this  tes- 
timony, you  state  that  you  went  from  the  Kead  house  to  the 
neighborhood  of  the  south-eastern  extremity  of  the  rancho, 
as  surveyed.  How  did  3^ou  travel  over  this  ground — on 
foot,  in  a  carriage,  or  on  horseback?  A,  My  recollection  is 
that  I  went  a  portion  of  the  way  in  a  carriage,  and  a  portion 
on  horseback. 

Q.  5.  Did  you  follow  the  shore  line  or  the  interior  line 
in  reaching  the  south-eastern  extremity  of  the  rancho,  as 
surveyed?  A.  I  do  not  remember  distinctly  what  road  I 
travelled,  but  I  remember  that  I  went  to  the  sea-coast  at 
several  points,  I  don't  think  I  followed  the  coast  around 
the  peninsula,  but  I  went  to  the  sea-coast  at  several  points. 

Q.  6.  Did  you  go  to  or  near  the  southeasterly  extrem- 
ity?    A.     I  did. 

Q.  7.  Where  is  the  call  found  of  the  Cerro  Aho,  mention- 
ed in  question  62,  found,  that  is,  in  what  document?  A. 
I  think  in  the  expediente  of  juridical  possession. 

Q.  8.  What  authority  have  you  for  translating  it  Ta- 
malpais  ?  A.  ^'Ihmalpais''  is  not  a  translation;  it  is  the 
original  word  or  name  as  used. 

Q.  9.  What  is  the  literal  translation  of  the  words  *'  Cerro 
Alto?"     A.     High  hill  or  mountain. 

Q.  10.  Is  there  anything  in  the  connection  as  used 
where  you  find  it  that  indicates  that  it  refers  to  any  partic- 
ular high  hill  or  mountain  ;  or  may  it  mean  simply  "a  high 
hillf  A.  The  words  '^  cerro  alto^'^  simply  means  ''a  high 
hill;''  but  where  it  is  used  in  this  case,  I  think,  in  connec- 
tion with  other  papers  in  the  case,  it  refers  to  the  place  call- 
ed sometimes  ''  Tamaljpais.'' 

Q.  11.  Who  went  with  you  upon  the  land,  if  anyone, 
to  point  out  the  objects  called  for  in  the  record  of  juridical 
possession  ?  A.  The  first  time  that  I  went,  I  think  I  was 
accompanied  by  Mr.  Valentine,  Doctor  L3'ford,  Mrs.  Lyford, 
and  Don  Jose  de  la  Cruz  Sanchez. 

Q.  12.  Did  any  of  those  parties  point  out  to  you  any 
point  as  the  solar,  and  if  so,  where  was  it?  A.  Don  Jose 
de  la  Cruz  Sanchez  pointed  out  to  me  the  point  where  the 


166^ 

juridical  possession  commenced  ;  I  do  not  remretiiber,  how- 
ever, that  he  pointed  out  the  "solar;"  my  recollection  is 
that  he  said  that  the  jmndical  possession  commenced  at  a 
point  near  the  old  mill — my  object  was  to  have  Jose  de  la 
Cruz  Sanchez,  who  was  one  of  the  parties  present  when 
possession  was  given,  to  point  out  to  me  of  his  own  accord^. 
the  point  at  which  the  measarement  was  commenced. 

(J.  13.  What  are  the  meanings  of  the  words  '^Oriente," 
and  "Poniente?''  A.  "Oriente,"  means  the  Orient  or 
East,  and  '^Poniente,"  means  West  from  the  Spani&h  verb 
"Poner,"  to  place  ;  the  point  where  the  sun  places  himself 
at  setting — and  "  Oriente,*'  the  place  of  his  rising. 

Q.  14,  Do  you  know  what  instruments  were  used  by  the 
Mexicans  in  making  their  surveys  of  Ian d&?  A.  Except 
in  a  very  few  instances,  they  used  no  instruTOent&,  except  a 
measuring  cord — ^I  think  that  Don  Abel  Stearns,  of  Los  Au'- 
gele&,  had  a  surveyor  s  compass^  which  he  used  on  nuking- 
some  surveys,  and  perhaps  Juan  Noget  had  an  iiistrument 
which  he  used  in  making  some  surveys. 

Q.  15.  Were  the  insti  uments  of  which  you  speak  used  in 
making  the  survey  of  the  Cbrte  Madera?  A.  I  am  certain 
that  they  were  not. 

Court  adjourned  until  Tuesday,  February  29th,  1876,  at 
1  o'clock  p.  M. 


Pursuant  to  adjournment,  court  met  at  1  o'clock,  Tues- 
day, February  29th,  1876,  and  adjourned  until  Monday, 
March  6th,  1876,  at  10;30  a.  m. 


Pursuant  to  adjournment,  court  met  on  Monday,  March 
6th,  1876,  at  10:30  a.  m.,  and  adjourned  until  Tuesday, 
March  7th,  1876,  at  10:30  a.  m. 

Before  the  adjournment,  the  Surveyor-General  ordered 
that  the  testimony  should  be  taken  and  closed  in  the  follow- 
ing order,  viz  : 

"From  the  6th  of  March  to  11th  of  March,  inclusive,  of 
witnesses  to  be  produced  by  B.  S.  Brooks. 

From  the  13th  March  to  15th  March,  inclusive,  of  wit- 
nesses to  be  produced  by  S.  R.  Throckmorton. 

On  the  18th  of  March,  of  witnesses  to  be  produced  by 
Mullen  &  Hyde. 

On  the  20th  March,  of  witnesses  to  be  produced  by  Cut- 
ter &  Gardner* 


167 

On  2l8t  March,  of  witnesses  to  be  produced  by  J.  B. 
Howard. 

From  22d  to  23l1,  inclusive,  of  witnesses  to  be  produced 
by  Sol.  A.  Sharp. 

On  the  24th  March,  of  witnesses  to  be  produced  by 
Southard. 

On  the  25th  March,  of  witnesses  to  be  produced  by 
Walter  Van  Dyke,  U.  S.  District  Attorney. 

And  that  every  man  be  payed  for  the  time  he  occupies. 


Pursuant  to  adjournment,  court  met  on  Tuesday,  March 
7th,  at  10:30  A.  m.,  and  adjourned  until  Thursday,  March 
9th,  1876,  at  10:30. 


Pursuant  to  adjournment,  court  met  on  Thursday,  March 
9th,  at  10:30  a.  m..  and  adjourned  until  Friday,  March  10th, 
1876,  at  11  o'clock  a.  m. 


Court  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment,  on  Friday,  March 
10th,  1876,  at  11  o'clock  a.  m. 

Francisco  Soto,  being  duly  sworn,  is  called  by  Mr.  Brooks, 
as  a  witness,  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Valentine,  and  testifies  as 
follows  : 

Q.  1.  What  is  your  name,  age,  place  of  residence,  and 
occupation  ?  A.  Francisco  Soto ;  54  years  of  age  ;  born  in 
the  presidio  of  San  Francisco  ;  and  now  reside  in  Watson- 
ville  ;  occupation,  farmer. 

Q.  2.  Do  you  know  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Pre- 
sidio ;  and  if  so,  when  did  you  first  know  it  ?  A.  Yes,  sir; 
I  have  known  it,  and  knew  it  first  in  1843. 

Q.  3.  Where  did  you  live  at  that  time  ?  A.  I  was  on 
the  Rancho  of  Punta  de  Reyes.  I  was  nine  years  working 
on  that  rancho. 

Q.  4.  Who  was  in  possession  of  the  Rancho  of  Corte 
Madera  at  that  time  ?  A.  Dona  Ylaria  Sanchez  Read,  the 
widow  of  Juan  Read,  was  in  possession. 

Q.  5.  Was  Juan  Read  alive  or  dead  at  that  time?  A, 
He  was  dead. 

Q.  6.  Were  his  widow  and  family  residing  on  the  ranch 
then  ?     A.  They  were. 

Q.  6.     How  long  after  1843  did  you  continue  to  see  the 


168 

rancli  ?     A.  From  that  time  up  to  this  time  I  have  known 
the  rancho. 

Q.  7.     What  did  you  ever  do  on  the  ranch  ?     A,  Mark- 
ing stock. 

Who  for  ?     A.  For  Mrs.  Read. 

At  what  times  and  how  often  was  that  ?     A.  Ev- 


Q. 

8. 

Q. 

9. 

ery  year. 

Q. 

10. 

Q. 

11. 

visit  the 

For  how  many  years  after  1843  ?  A.  Up  to  1852. 
From  1843  up  to  1852  how  many  times  did  you 
ranch  ?  A.  Every  month,  or  every  two  mouths, 
I  was  in  the  house  of  Doiia  Ylaria  Read. 

Q.  12.  Did  you,  during  these  times,  ride  over  the  whole 
ranch  ?  A.  Yes,  sir;  I  did  not  go  over  every  part  of  the 
ranch ;  I  went  from  the  house  of  Mrs.  Read  to  the  Mission 
of  San  RafUel ;  in  gatherin<y  stock  I  went  over  difiereiit  por- 
tions of  the  rancho  at  various  times,  but  I  could  not  say  I 
went  over  every  part  of  it  every  time  I  visited  the  ranch. 

Q.  13.  Do  3^ou  know  the  point  of  land  on  the  east  of  the 
rancho  called  Tiburon  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  14.  During  those  years  how  was  the  point  occupied  ? 
A.  With  cattle  and  horses. 

Q.  15.     For  pasturage  ?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  16.  By  whom  was  this  point  used  for  pasturage  ? 
A.  By  Sefiora  Ylaria  Read. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  and  Cutter  move  that  the  foregoing  ques- 
tion be  stricken  out  as  incompetent.  Mr.  Throckmorton 
also  objects  for  the  same  reasons. 

Q.  17.  Did  you  know  the  peninsula  to  the  west  of  this 
point,  called  '' Poirero  de  Tiburon?'''  A.  I  did.  All  the 
point  was  called  Tiburon. 

Q.  18.  By  whom  was  that  small  penin&ula  or  Potrero 
^sed,  and  for  what  purpose  ? 

Mullen  &  Hyde  object  to  the  question,  as  incompetent. 

A.  By  Doiia  Ylaria  Read,  for  the  purpose  of  enclosing 
horses  and  cattle. 

Q.  19.     Was  it  so  used  from  the  years  1843  to  1852  ? 

Mullen  &  Hyde  make  same  objection  as  to  preceding 
question. 

A.  It  was. 

Q.  20.  How  did  they  enclose  cattle  in  it  ?  A.  There 
>was  a  "ence  placed  across  the  neck  of  the  peninsula. 

Recess  here  taken  until  2  o'clock  p.  m. 

Q.  21.  What  was  the  length  of  the  fence  which  you 
speak  of  as  crossing  the  neck  of  the  little  peninsula  ?  A. 
From  40  to  50  feet. 


169 

Q.  22.  Did  this  fenco,  which  civ>sse(i  the  neck  of  the 
peninsula,  reach  from  the  water  on  the  one  side  to  the  wa- 
ter on  the  other  side  ?  A.  It  extended  from  the  water  on 
•one  side  to  the  water  on  the  other  side. 

Q.  23.  Was  there  a  gate  in  this  fence  ?  A.  There  were 
Ibars. 

Q.  24.  Was  there  any  fence  on  the  main  point  of  the 
Tiburon  ?  A.  There  was  no  fence,  except  the  one  on  the 
*'  bolerta,"  of  which  I  have  spoken. 

Oross^  Eocamination  by  Mullen  ^  Hyde, 

Q.  25.  Was  there  other  stock,  such  as  cattle  and  horse>% 
(between  1843  and  1852,  that  were  not  owned  by  Mrs.  Read, 
that  grazed  upon  the  lands  that  you  have  referred  to?  A. 
The  cattle  and  horses  of  Timothy  Murphy  and  of  William 
Richardson  went  upon  the  land,  but  none  others. 

Q.  26.  About  how  many  belonging  to  Murphy  entered 
upon  said  lands  ?  A.  I  cannot  say,  since  the  stock  all  the 
time  was  entering  upon  said  land  and  going  off. 

Q.  26.  About  how  many  belonging  to  Richardson  grazed 
upon  the  lands  described  by  you  ? 

Objected  to  by  Dr.  Lyford  as  immaterial. 

A.  I  cannot  say  ;  the  country  Was  open,  and  the  stock 
went  upon  the  land  and  left  it  at  will. 

Q.  27.  Of  the  stock  spoken  ot  by  you  as  grazing  on  the 
potrero,  how  many,  more  or  less,  belonged  to  Mrs.  Read; 
how  many  belonged  to  Richardson  ?  A.  I  cannot  say  ;  we 
are  speaking  of  land,  and  not  of  stock. 

Q.  28.  Do  you  know,  if  so,  state,  who  ow^ned  the  most 
of  the  stock  that  grazed  on  the  potrero,  by  you  spoken  of-^ 
Mrs.  Read,  Mr.  Murphy,  or  Mr.  Richardson  ?  A.  The 
most  of  the  stock  belonged  to  Mrs.  Read. 

Q.  29.  Do  you  know  the  brand  of  Mrs.  Read's  stock  at 
that  time?  A.  I  know  the  brand  ;  but  I  am  not  here  to 
testif}''  about  brands,  I  do  no^  desire  to  describe  ''  brands." 

Q.  30.  Please  describe  the  brand  that  you  used  in  mark- 
ing Mrs,  Read's  cattle.  A.  I  do  not  desire  to  paint  brands; 
I  am  speaking  of  lands,  and  not  of  stock. 

Q.  31.  In  marking  the  stock  of  Mrs.  Read,  please  describe 
the  manner  in  which  you  did  the  same.  A.  We  marked 
the  stock  with  a  brand,  and  by  cutting  the  ears. 

Q.  32.  Please  describe  that  brand  that  you  so  used.  A. 
I  will  not  undertake  to  paint  that  brand,  for  I  do  not  at  this 
date  distinctly  remember  what  it  was. 

Q.  33.     Were  the  cattle  of  Murphy  and  Richardson,  that 


170 

grazed  on  this  land,  marked  with  a  brand  ?     A.  They  weve^ 

Q.  34.  Was  the  brand  used  by  Mrs.  Read  different  fromj 
that  used  by  Murphy  and  Richardson  ?  A.  They  were  all 
different. 

Q.  34.  Was  the  brand  used  in  marking-  Mrs.  Read's  cat- 
tle the  same  that  was  used  in  marking  her  horses?  A.  It 
was  the  same, 

Q."  35.     Describe  the  material  used  ^in  the  construction  of 
the  fence  across  the  neck  of  the  peninsula.     A.  It  was  com- 
posed of  willow  posts  and  rails. 

Q.  36.  Were  these  posts  set  in  holes  in  the  ground,  or 
otherwise  ?     A.  They  were  placed  in  the  gi-ouncL 

Q.  37,  During  the  years  fron>  1843  to  1852,  did  you  ever 
see  a  stone  fence  across  or  near  the  Potreraof  Tiburon  ? 
A.  I  never  did. 

Q.  38.  When  was  the  fence,  by  you  described,  co<i- 
Htructed?     A,  I  cannot  remember  the  year, 

Q.  39.  State  who  built  it,  if  you  know.  A.  Ramon 
Valencia,  with  the  assistance  of  two  Indians. 

Q.  40,  Was  this  before  or  after  the  Americans  took 
possession  of  California  ?     A.  After  they  came. 

Q.  41,  Where  did  Mrs.  Read  live  when  you  first  went 
on  to  this  rancho  ?     A,  On  the  rancho. 

Q.  42.  Do  you  know  in  what  house  she  lived  on  thi» 
rancho  ?     A,  I  do. 

Q.  43.     Was  it  of  wood  or  adobe  ?     A.  It  was  of  adobe, 

Q.  44,  Do  you  know  what  bjundaries  this  rancho  ha» 
on  the  north  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  S-harp,  on  the  ground  that  this  is  not 
cross-examination,  but  new  matter  not  brought  out  in  direct 
examination. 

A.  Two  places,  where  they  cut  timber. 

Q.  45.  Do  you  know  the  boundary  of  the  Rancho  of 
Corte  Madera  on  the  west  ? 

Same  objection  as  to  foregoing  question. 

A,  I  do  not. 

Q.  46.  How  far  west,  from  1843  to  1852,  was  Mrs.  Read 
in  possession  of  lands  which  she  claimed  to  be  a  part  of  the 
Rancho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ?  A.  As  far  as 
the  Cerro  of  Tamalpais.  She  had  animals  on  all  of  this 
land. 

Q.  47,  How  far  east,  from  1843  to  1852,  was  Mrs.  Read 
in  possession  of  lands  which  she  claimed  to  be  a  part  of  the 
Rancho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ?  A.  I  don't  under- 
stand which  is  the  east  boundary. 


171 

Q.  48.  How  far  south  was  the  boundary  ?  A.  To 
Tihuron. 

Q.  49.  Up  to  what  line  on  Point  Tiburon  did  the  bound- 
ary extend  in  that  direction  ?  A.  All  the  land  from  Corte 
Madera  to  the  Point  Tiburon,  opposite  Angel  Island. 

Q.  50.  Where  did  the  boundary  line  of  the  ranch  cross 
Point  Tiburon  ? 

Objected  to  as  not  cross-examination. 

A.  It  included  all,  from  the  Point  Tiburon  to  the  Corte 
Madera. 

Q.  51.  How  does  it  come  that  you  know  the  boundaries 
so  specifically  and  well  in  that  direction,  and  yet  cannot  be 
equally  specific  in  reference  to  the  boundaries  in  the  other 
direction  ?  A.  Because  at  that  time  all  the  lands  of 
Tiburon  were  recognized  as  the  lands  of  Mrs.  Read. 

Q.  52.  Do  you  know,  if  so  state,  if  anj'  one,  between 
1843  and  1852,  set  up  any  claim  to  lands  called  Point 
Tiburon,  adverse  to  the  claim  thereto  set  up  by  Mrs.  Read  ? 
A.  There  was  no  one  who  made  any  one. 

Q.  53.  How  do  you  know  this  ?  A.  I  know,  because  I 
was  at  the  ranch  up  to  1852,  and  up  to  that  time  there  never 
was  any  dispute  about  it. 

Q.  54.  With  whom  have  you  had  any  conversation 
within  the  last  week  pertaining  to  matters  testified  to  by  you 
in  this  case.     A.  With  no  one. 

Q.  55.  At  whose  invitation  or  request  are  you  here  as  a 
witness  ?     A.  Dr.  Lyford  and  Juan  Read. 

Q.  56.  How  were  you  informed  that  you  were  needed 
here  ?     A.  By  dispatch  on  Tuesday  to  be  here  on  Thursday. 

Q.  57.     From  w^hom  ?     A.  I  think  from  Mrs.  Lyford. 

Re-Direct. 

Q.  58.  What  was  done  with  the  cattle  of  others  that 
came  upon  the  land  ?  A.  Every  year,  during  the  rodeo 
times,  the  respective  owners  took  their  cattle  ofi*  the  ran- 
cho  to  their  own  ranehos. 

FRANCISCO  SOTO  M . 

Court  adjourned  until  Saturday,  March  11th,  1876,  at  11 
o'clock  A.  M. 


Court  met  pursuant  to  adjournment  on  Saturday,  March 
11th,  1876,  at  11  o'clock  a.  m. 


172 

Juan  J.  Read  being  duly  sworn,  called  as  a  witness  by  Mr. 
Brooks,  on  the  part  of  the  claimants,  and  testifies  as  follows  ; 

Q.  1.  Please  state  your  age,  residence  and  occupation. 
A.  I  am  39  ;  reside  in  Marin  Co.;  farmer. 

Q.  2.  Do  you  reside  on  the  ranch  ?  A.  I  reside  on  the 
ranch  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio. 

Q.  3.  How  long  have  you  resided  on  that  rancho  ?  A. 
Most  ever  since  I  was  born. 

Q.  4.  Are  you  related  to  Juan  Read,  the  grantee,  and  if 
so,  how  ?     A.  He  was  my  father. 

Q.  5.  How  was  the  rancho  occupied  when  you  first 
knew  it  ?     A.  It  was  occupied  wdth  stock. 

Q.  6.  Who  occupied  the  rancho  with  stock  ?  A.  Juan 
Read  and  his  family. 

Q.  7.  When  did  your  father  die  ?  A.  I  do  not  recol- 
lect, but  I  think  it  must  have  been  1844  or  5. 

Q.  8.  Was  it  before  the  breaking  out  of  the  war  of  1846? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  9.  Where  did  your  father  reside  upon  the  rancho  ? 
A.  At  the  ranch  house. 

Q.  10.  Is  that  the  same  that  is  there  now  ?  A.  Ko  ;  he 
was  building  the  present  house  when  he  died. 

Q.  11.  How  was  the  former  house  situated  with  respect 
to  the  present  ?  A.  It  lay  about  southwest ;  about  20  yards 
distant. 

Q.  12.  What  sort  of  a  house  was  that  old  one?  A.  It 
was  a  board  house ;  split  boards. 

Q.  13.  Was  that  the  first  house  that  was  there  ?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  14.  Is  the  present  house  an  adobe  house  ?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  15.  Did  you  perform  any  service  or  duty  upon  the 
rancho  up  to  the  death  of  your  father  ?  A.  I  was  too  young 
then. 

Q.  16.  Did  you  attend  any  of  the  rodeos,  that  were  held 
before  your  father's  death  ?  A.  I  did  not  attend  to  the 
rodeos,  but  I  was  at  the  marking  and  branding. 

Q.  17.  Whatis  the  object  of  the  rodeo  ?  A.  Generally 
to  brand  cattle. 

Q.  18.  Did  you  send  notice  to  all  of  the  colindantes  ? 
A.     Yes  sir,  that  was  the  rule. 

Q.  18.  For  what  purpose  were  the  colindantes  notified  ? 
A.     So  as  to  come  and  take  their  stock  away. 

Q.  19.  What  was  the  rodeo?  A.  Gathering  of  all  the 
cattle  on  the  ranchos. 


\n 

Q.  20.  How  were  they  gathered  ?  A.  By  vaqueros 
•who  were  mounted  en  horses  and  drove  in  the  <jattle  from 
the  exterior  boundaries  to  the  rodeo  ground, 

Q.  21.  Wliat  was  done  at  the  rodeo  ground  ?  A.  Sep- 
arate the  stock  of  the  colindantes  from  the  stock  of  the 
ranch, 

Q,  22.  What  was  done  then  with  the  stock  of  the  colindan- 
tes, and  what  was  done  with  the  &tock  of  the  ranch  ?  A, 
The  stock  of  the  colindantes  each  one  had  to  take  his  stock 
out  of  the  boundaries  ef  the  ranch,  into  his  own  ranch.  The 
Tanch  stoek  were  branded  and  turned  out  again. 

Q.  23.  From  what  lines  was  the  rodeo?  A.  P>oni  the 
-exterior  lines  of  the  raneh. 

Q.  24,  That  was  recognized  as  the  rodeo  bounds?  A, 
Yes  sir. 

Q.  24.  What  were  the  rodeo  ^oun^s,  or  exterioi-  limits 
-of  this  rancho,  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ?  A.  On  the 
north  and  northwest,  it  was  Corte  Madera  de  San  Pablo,  on 
the  east  to  the  Point  of  Tiburon,  around  the  Ba}^  of  San 
Frai>eisco  up  to  the  Canada  Tapeste,  up  to  the  lagoon  and 
Taraalpais. 

Q.  2o.  What  was  the  boundary  on  the  north  from  the 
dorte  Madera  de  San  Pablo  to  Point  of  Tiburon  ?  A,  San 
Pablo  Bay. 

Q.  26,  What  was  the  exact  boundary  at  the  Corte  Ma- 
dera de  San  Pablo  ?  _Was  it  a  forest  or  a  stream  ?  A,  A 
jstream, 

Q.  27.    What  stream  was  it  ?    A.    Stream  Arroyo  Holon. 

Q.  28.  Where  was  the  laguna  of  which  70U  have  spoken, 
and  what  was  its  name?  A.  The  lacuna  was  at  the  Ta- 
malpais  or  Sobrante,  its  name  was  La  Laguna. 

Q.  29,  What  was  it,  and  where  was  it  situated  with  re- 
spect to  the  natural  topography  ?  A,  It  was  a  pond  of 
water  full  of  tules.  It  is  in  a  hollow  place  in  the  hills,  close 
to  the  beach.  It  is  about  six  miles  from  the  adobe  house — 
it  is  about  southwest  from  the  house, 

Q.  30,  Are  you  speaking  now  of  the  limits  of  the  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio  ?  A.  I  am  speaking  now  about  the 
boundaries  of  the  rodeo. 

Q.  31.  My  question  was  limited  to  the  rodeo  boundaries 
of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ;  please  correct 
your  description  of  boundaries  so  as  to  restrict  them  to  the 
boundaries  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio.  A. 
I  do  not  understand  the  question.  I  do  not  know  whether 
you  are  talking  about  the  boundaries  of  the  ranch  or  the 
rodeo  boundaries. 


IT4 

Q.  32.  Did  not  your  mother  claim  land  adjoining  the 
Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  V  A.  Yes,  she  did  ;  and 
we  do  claim  it  yet. 

Q.  33,    As  distinct  from  the  grant  made  to  your  father  ? 
sir. 
What  did  you  call  that  ?     A,  Sobrante^  or  Tamal- 


A. 

Yes, 

Q. 

34. 

pais. 

Q. 

35. 

that 

?     A, 

Q. 

35. 

On  which  side  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  was 
On  the  west  side. 

In  your  description  of  rodeo  boundaries  have  you 
not  included  this  sobrante?     A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  36.  What  was  the  exterior  limit  of  the  Rancho  Corte 
Madera,  from  the  Holon  to  the  Point  of  Tiburon  ?  A.  The 
Bay  of  San  Pablo. 

Q.  37.  Does  this  boundary,  from  the  Holon  around  by 
the  shore  of  the  bay  to  the  point  nearest  your  father's  house,, 
form  a  part  of  the  boundary  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera, 
or  does  it  include  any  part  of  the  Sobrante  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  as  leading^. 

A.     No,  it  does  not  include  any  part  of  the  sobrante. 

Q.  38.  What  improvements  were  on  the  rancho  at  the 
time  of  your  father's  death  ?  A.  There  was  the  house,  the 
mill,  and  another  fence  between  the  house  and  the  mill, 
called  Las  Papas  and  Corral  Grande. 

Q.  3i».  Where  was  the  Punta  de  Tiburon  ?  A.  Where 
it  is  yet. 

Q.  40.  Question  repeated.  A.  It  is  about  east  from  the 
house. 

Q.  41.  Describe  it,  as  you  would  describe  it  to  a  stranger, 
so  that  he  could  find  it,  A.  Mr.  Brooks,  I  do  not  see  how 
I  can  describe  it  unless  I  make  a  map. 

Q.  42.  Point  it  out  on  the  plat  of  the  official  survey, 
which  is  now  shown  you.  A.  The  point  on  the  map,  which 
is  called  Strawberry  Point,  we  call  El  Meja.  Goini^  from 
the  house,  after  I  passed  that  Alnieja  Point, -I  considere 
myself  on  Point  Tiburon.  This  (pointing  to  that  marked 
Peninsula  Island)  we  called  the  Potrero. 

Q.  43.  What  is  the  Punta  del  Tiburon?  A.  At  the  ex- 
treme end  marked  Point  Tiburon  on  the  official  map,  and 
from  Sta.  3-43  to  Sta.  3-85  inclusive,  as  marked  on  the  official 
map. 

Q.  44.  How  was  this  Tiburon  occupied  by  your  father 
and  his  family  ?     A.  By  stock. 

Q.  45.  Up  to  what  time  did  they  continue  to  so  occupy 
it  ?     A.  Up  to  the  present  time. 


175 

Q.  46.  How  was  the  parcel  of  land  that  is  marked  on 
the  map,  Peninsula  Island,  how  is  it  occupied,  and  by 
whom  ?     A.  It  was  occupied  by  our  horses. 

Q.  47.  Was  it  separated  from  the  rest  of  the  house,  and 
if  so,  how  ?     A.  It  was  separated  by  a  little  fence. 

Q.  48.  Was  there  any  opening  in  this  fence  ?  A.  We 
had  bars  on  the  fence. 

Q.  49.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  Potrero  ?  A. 
Potrero  means  an  enclosed  field  to  turn  in  horses. 

Q.  50.  Did  you  have  any  other  name  to  it  besides  Po- 
trero ?     A.  !N"o. 

Q.  51.     Was  it  not  known  as  the  Potrero  del  Tiburon  ? 

Mullen  &  Hyde  object  to  question  as  leading,  and  be- 
cause it  has  been  answered  in  a  manner  difterent  from  that 
which  the  question  suggests. 

A.   ]^o. 

Q.  52.  Simply  El  Potrero  ?  A.  El  Potrero  de  la  Punta 
del  Tiburon. 

Q.  53.  Was  there  any  fence  across  any  portion  of  Tibu- 
ron besides  this  little  one  across  the  neck,  spoken  of  prior 
to  the  change  of  government  ?     A.  No. 

Q.  54.  When  was  the  first  fence  put  on  Tiburon,  cross- 
ing Point  Tiburon  ?     A.  About  ^ve  or  six  years  ago. 

Q.  55.  Wherefore,  and  by  whom  ?  A.  Because  me 
and  my  sisters  have  made  a  partition  ;  the  fences  were  put 
up  on  the  lines  of  partition,  and  were  made  by  myself. 

Q.  56.  You  have  said  that  you  have  lived  on  the  rancho 
almost  from  your  birth;  how  was  it,  as  your  parents  lived 
there,  that  you  did  not  live  there  at  and  from  j'Our  birth  ? 
A.  My  mother  being  alone  at  that  place,  it  was  natural  that 
she  should  desire  to  come  to  the  Presidio,  so  as  to  be  among 
her  fi'iends  to  be  confined. 

Q.  57.  With  that  exception,  did  you  reside  always  on 
the  rancho  ?  A.  Except  when  the  administrators  were 
upon  the  rancho,  but  this  was  after  the  occupation  of  the 
country  by  the  Americans. 

Q.  58,  From  your  birth,  up  to  the  time  of  the  change  of 
the  government,  did  any  person,  to  your  knowledge,  beside 
your  father  and  his  family,  claim  the  right  to  use  or  occupy 
any  portion  of  the  land  included  in  the  present  official  sur- 
vey, or  the  "  Peninsula  f     A.  E"o. 

Q.  59.  You  have  spoken  of  the  cattle  of  the  colindantes 
being  separated  at  the  rodeos ;  how  did  such  cattle  come  to 
be  upon  the  rancho  ?  A.  The  whole  country  being  with- 
out fences,  the  cattle  could  not  be  prevented  from  going 
from  one  rancho  to  another,  seeking  pasture. 


176 

Q.  60.  Is  your  remark  directed  t(7  this  part  of  the 
country  alone,  or  to  the  whole  of  California  ?  A.  To  such 
portions  of  the  country  that  I  knew. 

Q.  61.  What  was  the  fact,  as  to  California  generally,  in 
respect  to  fences  ?  A.  There  were  no  fences  ;  there  were 
nothing  hut  mojoneras,  creeks,  bays,  &c. 

Q.  62.  How  did  you  distinguish  the  cattle  of  one  rancho 
from  those  of  another  ?     A.  By  brands  and  ear  marks. 

Q,  63.  How  did  you  distinguish  those  that  were  not 
branded  or  ear  marked  ?  A.  The  small  stock,  that  is  the 
calves  that  were  running  with  tlie  cows,  these  were  the 
only  stock  that  the  colindantes  had  the  privilege  of  taking 
out ;  the  balance  of  the  stock  that  were  unmarked  were 
claimed  by  the  owners  of  the  land. 

Q.  64.  To  whom  did  the  calf  following  the  cow  go  ? 
A.  To  the  owner  of  the  cow. 

Q,  65.  To  whom  did  the  stock  which  bad  no  mark,  and 
which  was  not  following  the  cow,  belong?  A.  It  belonged 
to  the  person  that  had  given  the  rodeo,  and  that  owned  the 
land. 

Q.  66.  Could  the  owner  of  a  rancho  rodeo  beyond  the 
limits  of  his  rancho  ?     A.  Not  without  permission. 

Q.  67.  If  unbranded  cattle  were  brought  from  beyond 
the  exterior  limits  of  the  rancho,  would  they  belong  to  the 
person  giving  the  rodeo  ?  A.  If  it  was  proven  that  they 
were  brought  from  beyond  the  outside  limits  of  the  rancho, 
they  would  not. 

Q.  68.  How  often  was  the  rodeo  given  ?  A.  Generally 
four  or  ^ye  times  a  year  on  each  rancho. 

Q.  69.  Would  the  young  stock,  born  after  the  preced- 
ing rodeo,  ordinarily  be  following  the  mother?  A.  They 
ordinarilv  would,  up  to  the  next  rodeo. 

Q.  70.  Then  the  unbranded  stock,  not  following  the 
mother,  would  only  be  such  as  had  accidentally  escaped  at 
the  preceding  rodeo  ?     A.  Yes,  sir. 

Gross-Examination  by  Mr.  Shanklinfor  Mr.  Throckmorton. 

Q.  71.  On  page  488,  question  twenty-four  of  your  testi- 
mony, you  were  asked  "  what  were  the  rodeo  bounds  or 
exterior  limits  of  the  Kanclio  ''  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  f^ 
Was  there  any  difference  between  the  rodeo  boundaries  and 
the  rancho  boundaries  ?  A.  At  that  time  there  was  not, 
because  we  claimed  the  whole  of  the  land. 

Q.  72.  What  years  do  you  refer  to  ?  A.  I  refer  to  the 
year  1845,  to  the  time  that  the  administrators  took  posses- 


177 

sion  of  the  land,  in  185Q  or  1851.     During  their  possession 
'110  rodeos  were  made. 

Q.  73.  The  first  question  to  which  your  attention  was 
-called  referred  to  the  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ;  please  to 
•confine  your  answer  to  said  rancho,  as  to  the  bounds  of  its 
rodeo.  A.  I  do  not  recollect  that  I  was  questioned  as  to 
the  bounds  of  the  rodeo  of  the  Rancho  of"  Corie  Madera  del 
Presidio.'^ 

Q.  74.  Then  answer  the  question  now,  as  asked  you  on 
page  488.  A.  At  that  time,  the  rodeo  bonndaries  were  the 
■^' Laguna,"  the  Canada  of  Tapeste  (called  now  Coyote 
-Creek),  and  the  Tamalpais,  the  Corte  Madera  de  San  Pablo 
and  Point  Tiburon. 

Q.  75.  You  have  stated  that  the  rodeo  bounds  were  the 
■same  as  the  boundaries  of  the  rancho.  Are  we  to  under- 
stand by  your  last  answer  that  the  boundaries  therein  named 
were  the  boundaries  of  the  Rancho  of  "  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio/"  as  you  understood  them  in  1845?  A.  I  did  not^ 
The  rodeo  boundaries  were  one  and  the  ranch  boundaries 
w^ere  another. 

Q.  75.  Did  you  know  the  boundaries  of  the  Rancho  of 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  in  1845  ?     A.  Yes.  sirv 

Q.  76,  Wherein  did  the  ranch  boundaries  of  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio,  in  1845,  as  you  understood  them, 
differ  from  the  rodeo  boundaries,  as  given  by  you  in  answer 
to  question  75,  on  page  497  ?  A.  The  ranch  boundaries 
were  difierent  from  the  rodeo  boundaries.  We  claimed  two 
ranchos — that  is,  ray  mother  claimed  one  rancho  adjoining 
my  father's  Rancho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  the  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio  being  the  boundarj^  of  ray  father's 
rancho,  and  the  other  boundaries  being  those  that  I  have 
mentioned,  as  the  rodeo  boundaries  of  my  mother's  rancho. 

Q.  77,  Now,  give  us  the  boundaries  of  your  father's 
Rancho  of"  Corie  Madera  del  Presidio.''  A,  Arroyo  Holon 
or  Corte  Madera  de  San  Pablo,  Punta  del  Tiburon,  the  Bay 
oi  San  Francisco  and  the  Bay  of  San  Pablo,  and  Arroyo  of 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio. 

Q.  78.  Did  your  father's  estate  claim  as  boundaries  of 
the  Rancho  of  the  "  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,"  the  Arroyo 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  on  the  west,  from  its  mouth  to 
its  source,  and  the  Arroyo  Holon  on  the  north,  from  its 
mouth  to  its  source?  A.  My  father  claimed — I  cannot 
exactly  state  what  distance — on  the  Arroyo  Corte  Madera 
del  Presidio,  up  to  the  Arroyo  Holon.  I  cannot  exactly 
state  the  distance  he  claimed  on  either  arroyo. 


178 

Q.  79.  Are  you  an  etlocated  man,  and  are  you  educatecF 
in  the  English  lang-uaiJ^e  ?  A,  I  received  a  very  poor 
edu<3atioii,  aixl  I  have-  to  thank  the  Americans  for  sucli 
deficiency. 

Q,  80.  Have  you  ever  testified  res^ar ding- the  boundaries^ 
of  the  Rancho  of  "  Corte  Madera  del  Presidia"  an  any 
former  occasion  ?     A.  I  have. 

Q,  81.  Where  did~  you  place  them  on  that  occasion  ?  A^ 
I  do  not  recollect. 

Questions  by  Mr,  Sharp,  for  ClaimaMs, 

Q.  82.  State  if  the  boundaries  of  the  Rancho  of  Corte 
Madera  del  Fresidioy  as  given  by  you  in  the  foregoing 
testimony,  are  substantially  the  same  as  ^ven  by  you  in 
your  farmer  testimony,  as  near  as-  you  can  recollect.  A^ 
They  are. 

Q,  83.  I  ask  you  to  restate  those  baundaries,  and  say  if 
they  are  not  the  true  boundaries  as  learned  by  3^au  in  boy- 
hood? A.  Arroyo  Holon  ;  Bay  of  San  Pablo;  Punta  del 
Tiburon ;  Bay  of  San  Francisco ;  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ;, 
from  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  to  the  Arroyo  Holon. 

Q.  84.  State  if  there  was  any  space  of  ground,  or  land^ 
between  the  place  yon  call  Punta  del  Tiburon,  and  that  por- 
tion of  the  Bay  of  San  Francisco,  now  marked  ^' Eaccoon 
Straits''  on  the  official  plat,  and  whether  Punta  del  Tiburon 
did  not  extend  to  the  w^aters  of  that  portion  of  the  bay  ?  A.. 
The  Punta  del  Tiburon  extended  to  the  water's  edge,  and 
there  is  no  intermediate  land  between  that  point  and  the 
waters  of  the  bay. 

Q.  85.  Can  you  point  out  on  the  official  map  what  you 
understand  to  be  the  location  of  your  father's  solar,  as  referred 
to  in  the  record  of  juridical  possession;  if  you  can  do  so^ 
point  it  out  on  said  official  map  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Brooks,  because  it  is  not  competent 
for  the  witness  to  determine  which  was  tlie  solar  referred  to 
in  the  act  of  juridical  possession,  at  which  he  was  not  present, 

A.  I  cannot  do  so,  because  all  the  creeks  are  not  laid 
down  on  said  map;  somewhere  near  point  marked  "C.  M. 
181." 

JOH^^  J.  READ. 

Adjourned  till  13th. 


179 

March  13th,  1876,  10  o'clock  a.  m. 
Parties  c jiitestaiits,  met  pursuant  to  adjournment ; 
Whereupon,  B.  S.  Brooks,  attorney  for  T.  B.  Valentine, 
ottered  the  following  exhibits: 

B.  S.  Brooks,  counsel  for  T.  B.  Valentine,  here  offers  the 
following  exhibits  in  the  case  of  the  rancho  of  "  Corte  Ma- 
dera del  Presidio." 

First :  The  opinion  and  decree  (bj  certified  copies)  of  the 
Board  of  Land  Commissioners  in  the  case  of  the  rancho  of 
**  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,"  marked  (T.  B.  V.  No.  1). 

Also :  The  expediente  (traced  copy)  of  the  rancho  of 
^*  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,"  Juan  Read,  confirmee,  mark- 
ed :  (T.  B.  V.  J^-o.  2). 

Also:  Agreement  of  James  C.  Bolton  with  John  J.  Read, 
et  al,  (by  ^-ertified  copy)  dated  August  12th,  1865,  marked  : 
(T.  B.  V.  No.  3). 

Also:  Deed  from  H  A.Boyle  to  T.  B.  Valentine,  (by 
certified  co[y,)  dated  January  lOth,  1872,  marked  (T.  B.  V. 
^o,  4). 

Also :  Deed  (by  certified  copy)  from  H.  A.  Boyle  to  Thos. 
B.  Valentine;  dated  September  23d,  1872;  marked  (T.  B. 
V.  No.  5). 

S.  R.  Throckmorton  ofi'ers  the  following  as  an  exhibit : 
/'Decision  of  Secretary  of  the  Interior  (by  certified  copy) 
in  the  case  of  the  rancho  of  "  Corte  de  Madera  del  Presidio," 
dated  January  6th,  1872,  the  date  of  the  certificate  of  the 
General  Land  Ofiice  to  the  same  being  February  7ih,  1876, 
marked  Exhibit  (S.  R.  T.,  No.  17). 

Cross- Examination  by  S.  B.  Throckmorton. 

R.  C.  Hopkins  recalled. 

Q.  1.  You  mentioned  going  upon  the  rancho  of  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio,  accompanied  by  Mr.  Valentine, 
Doctor  Lyford,  Jose  de  la  Cruz  Sanchez,  et  al;  at  what  date, 
can  you  remember  ?  A.  About  the  month  of  September, 
1873  (see  page  470  of  this  examination). 

Q.  2.  You  stated  that  Jose  de  la  Cruz  Sanchez,  at  that 
time,  pointed  out  to  you  the  point  where  the  juridical  pos- 
session of  rancho  of  "  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  "  com- 
menced. 

Q.  3.  Did  he  so  point  out  to  you,  at  that  time,  such  point 
of  commencement  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Gardner,  as  not  the  best  evidence. 


180 

A.     He  did. 

Q.  4.  You  state  on  page  471,  "  My  object  was  to  have 
Jose  de  ]a  Cruz  Sanchez,  who  was  one  of  the  parties  pres- 
ent when  possession  was  given,  to  point  out  to  me,  of  his 
own  accord,  the  point  at  which  the  measurement  was  com- 
menced."    Was  that  your  object  ? 

Objected  to,  as  incompetent  and  irrelevant,  by  Mr.  Gard- 
ner. 

A.    It  was. 

Q.  5.  Did  Jose  de  la  Cruz  Sanchez  so  point  it  out  to 
you  ? 

Same  objection  by  Mr.  Gardner, 

A.     He  did. 

Q.  6.  Where  did  he  locate  the  commencement  of  that 
measurement  ? 

Same  objection  by  Mr.  Gardner. 

A.  As  well  as  I  recollect,  at  a.  point  at  or  near  an  old 
saw  mill,  the  frame  work  of  which  still  remains. 

Q.  7.  Did  Jose  de  la  Cruz  Sanchez  point  out  to  you  the 
direction  of  said  line  from  the  point  of  commencement  ? 

This  question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Howard,  together  with 
all  conversation  had  by  witness  with  said  Jose  de  la  Cruz 
Sanchez,  or  other  persons  now  living  and  subject  to  be  ex- 
amined, on  the  ground  that  such  conversations  are  not  evi- 
dence of  any  fact;  on  the  further  ground,  that  it  is  not 
shown  that  said  Sanchez  is  interested  or  was  interested  in 
the  ownership  of  any  of  the  lands  in  controversy,  and  his 
declarations  are  without  force  or  effect ;  the  question  is 
further  objected  to  as  incompetent,  immaterial  and  irrele- 
vant. 

A.  He  did. 

Q.  8.  In  what  direction  did  that  line  run,  as  he  pointed 
it  out  ? 

Same  objection  as  foregoing. 

Counsel  for  Mr.  Throckmorton  states  that  this  and  the 
preceding  question  are  in  cross-examination,  and  that  the 
counsel  now  examining  offered  no  objection  to  the  direct 
examination  to  which  these  questions  refer ;  he  is  therefore 
barred  from  now  interposing  an  objection. 

J.  B.  Howard,  to  avoid  misunderstanding  by  the  Surveyor- 
General,  or  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  ob- 
jects to  all  such  questions  and  answers,  appearing  anywhere 
in  the  record,  by  this  or  any  other  witness,  and  relating  con- 
versations by  or  with  any  person,  not  shown  to  be,  or  to 
have  been  interested  as  owner,  or  claiming  ownership  in 


181 

saiTiy  of  said  lands  in  controversy^  or  of  a  witness  proved  to 
'be  deceased,  or  unless  proper  foundation  is  laid  for  the  in- 
troduction of  secondary  evidence,  or  perpetuated  testimony, 
A.  As  well  as  I  recollect,  Jose  de  la  Cruz  Sanchez 
'pointed  with  his  hand  in  a  dii^ection  across  the  mountains, 
and  said  that  the  line  ran  in  that  direction  ;  and  that  he 
''Could  show  me  a  certain  marked  tree  on  the  other  side  of 
'the  mountain,  near  where  said  line  terminated ;  but  he  gave 
no  other  indication  as  to  the  course  of  this  line,  except  by 
pointing  the  direction  with  his  hand. 

Q.  9.  Bid  he  state  where  that  line  terminated  2  A.  I 
thif'k  he  said  that  it  ran  to  the  Arroyo  Holon. 

Witness  is  here  shown  the  official  map  of  survey,  and 
lisked  to  point  out  on  said  map  the  locality  of  said  mill  and 
point  which  he  (Sanchez)  designated  as  the  staining  jKViiit 
•of  said  line, 

A.  The  old  mill  referred  to  is  not  shown  on  the  official 
inap. 

Q.  10.  Witness  is  here  shown  Exhibit  "S.  R.  T.  ^o.  6," 
and  asked  if  he  can  locate  the  mill  on  said  Exhibit,  as 
pointed  out  to  witness  by  Sanchez. 

Exhibit  objected  to  as  uncertain,  and  not  verified  for  ^ny 
purpose ;  nor  does  it  represent  the  official  action  of  any 
-officer  or  person  charged  Avith  any  official  duty  relating  to 
•the  examination  or  ascertainment  of  the  juridical  possession 
•of  the  lands  in  controversy,  and  the  question  is  objected  to 
as  immaterial,  irrelevant,  and  incompetent. 

Sol.  A.  Sharp  makes  same  objection  on  behalf  of  claim- 
ants. 

A.  My  recollection  is,  that  the  old  mill  pointed  out  to 
me  by  Jose  de  la  Cruz  Sanchez  as  the  point  at  which  th^ 
juridical  measurement  was  commenced,  is  situated  on  a 
<3reek,  westerly  from  the  Read  house,  and  at  a  distance  from 
said  house  of  a  mile,  more  or  less. 

Q.  11.     Is  it  not  on  the  westerly  branch  of  the  creek  ? 

Objected  to  as  leading, 

A.    I  think  it  is. 

Q,  12.  Witness  is  shown  the  official  map  of  the  survey 
of  the  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  and  is  asked.  With  the 
aid  of  Exhibit  6  to  guide  you,  how  far  west,  or  north  of 
west,  would  said  site  of  old  mill  be  from  post  **  C.  M.  181,'' 
as  marked  on  said  official  map;  what  distance  in  chains  on 
said  official  map? 

Same  objections,  as  of  second  preceding  objection,  so  far 
as  it  relates  to  Exhibit  No,  6. 


182' 

A.  About  forty-five  chains,  ii)  a  direction  a  little  to  the* 
^ortli  of  west. 

Q.  18.  Witness  is  shown  the  official  map,  and  is  asked 
to  point  ou^^  as  nearly  as  he  can,  the  point  on  the  Arroyo 
Holoii  to  which  his  attention  was  directed  by  said  Jose  de 
Ta  Oiiz  Sanchez,  as  the  direction  of  the  line  of  juridical 
measurement  herein  referred  to.  A.  I  cannot  identify  the^ 
spot  on  said  official  map;  I  can  on]y  say  that  Sanchez 
pointed  out  to  me  an  oak  tree  standing  on  a  little  knoll  near 
the  Arroyo  Ilolon ;  but  since  I  went  to  that  point  only 
once,  and  then  by  a  roundabout  way,  I  cannot,  from  any 
data  found  upon  said  map,  locate  thereon  the  position  of 
said  tree. 

Q.  14.  ]>(>  you  recognize  the  Arroyo  Hoi  on  on  the 
official  map  ?  A.  I  find  upon  the  official  map  the  repre- 
sentation of  a  stream^  marked  "^  Arroyo  Holon." 

Q.  15.  Assuming  that  said  Sanchez  pointed  to  the  ex- 
treme eastern  point  of  said  Arroyo  Holoti,  as  laid  down  on 
said  official  map,  at  what  distance  in  chains  frwn  "Post  C. 
M.  181 ''  would  a  Rne  extended  froni  said  site  of  said  mill, 
as  pointed  out  by  said  Sanchez,  to  the  most  eastern  point 
of  said  Arroyo  Holon,  {is  shown  by  said  official  map,  cross 
the  Arroyo  "  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,"  as  laid  down  on 
said  official  map? 

Objected  to  by  Mr^  Sharp,  as  incompetent,  in^eievant  and 
immaterial,  and  not  the  best  of  evidence,  it  not  having  been 
shown  that  the  witness  has  any  experience  in  surveying. 

A.  Fifty  chains. 

Q.  16.  In  what  direction  from  said  Post  G.  M.  181  ^ 
would  it  cross  said  Arroyo  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ? 
A.  About  northwest. 

Q.  17.  Witness  is  shown  ^'  S.  K.  T.  No.  6,"  and  is  asked 
to  mark  on  said  Exhibit  the  point  where  said  line  would 
cross  the  said  x\rroyo  of"  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio.''  A. 
Witness  makes  a  mark  in  black  ink,  which  mark  is  en- 
closed with  a  circle,  as  the  point  referred  to. 

Adjourned  till  to-morrow  morning  at  10  o'clock. 


March  14th,  1876. 
Met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

William  I.  Lewis,  sworn  on  the  part  of  S.  R.  Throck- 
morton, one  of  the  objectors. 

Q*  1.     What  is  your  name,  age,  place  of  residence,  and 


183 

occupatioti  ?  A.  My  name  is  William  I.  Lewis;  age,  near- 
ly 64  years  ;  residence,  San  Francisco  ;  and  occupation^ 
surveyor  and  civil  engineer. 

Q.  2.  Have  you  had  any  relation  with  U.  S.  surveys;  if 
80,  state  where  you  have  made  surveys  under  the  U.  S.,  and 
when  you  first  commenced  making  such  surveys.  A.  I 
have  made  a  large  numher  of  surveys  for  the  United  States, 
in  the  capacity  of  U.  S.  Deputy,  from  the  years  1852  to 
1871,  in  this  service,  having  made  surveys  of  a  large  num- 
ber of  Spanish  grants  in  California. 

Q.  3.  Have  you  had  any  extended  experience  in  locating 
Spanish  grants,  from  the  title  papers  and  descriptions 
therein,  and  in  ascertaining  the  boundaries  thereof,  from 
such  descriptions?  and  if  so,  please  name  some  of  such 
grants,  the  descriptions  of  which  you  have  been  called  upon 
to  illustrate  and  apply. 

Objected  to  by  J.  B.  Howard,  because  no  foundation  for 
the  examination  of  this  witness  as  an  expert  in  and  with 
reference  to  his  knowledge  of  the  language,  laws,  and  cus- 
toms of  Mexico ;  and  furthermore,  surveys  oi'  Spanish 
ranchos  in  California,  so  far  as  made  by  this  witness,  or  any 
other  person,  are  shown  by  the  records  of  this  office,  here 
present  and  available,  and  which  constitute  the  best  evi- 
dence. 

Sol.  A,  Sharp  makes  same  objection. 

A.  I  have  had  an  extended  experience  in  the  location  of 
land  held  under  Mexican  and  Spanish  titles  ;  I  have 
surveyed,  under  instructions  from  State  Courts  and  from  the 
tJ.  S.  Surveyor-Gen'l,  the  following  ranchos  :  '*Los  Coyotes," 
Santa  Clara  County  ;  "San  Ysidrio,"  same  county;  ''Las 
Animas,"  same  county;  '' El  Refugio,"  same  county;  "Los 
Serritos,"  "Las  Puntas,"  Contra  Costa  County;  "Los  Me- 
denos,"  same  county;  "El  Einconada,"  Santa  Clara  Co., 
and  many  others,  covering  twenty  years  of  service. 

Q.  4.  Have  you  been  frequently  called  as  a  vyitness  in 
the  quaUty  of  an  expert,  in  cases  in  the  courts  of  this  State, 
and  examinations  pending  between  the  United  States  and 
owners  and  claimants  of  ranchos,  claimed  under  Spanish  or 
Mexican  grants  ? 

Objected  to  by  Sol.  A.  Sharp,  on  same  grounds  as  stated 
in  foregoing  objection. 

A.  I  have  been  called  as  an  expert  in  a  great  number  of 
cases  in  the  State  Courts  of  California,  but  in  rnany  more 
cases  in  the  U.  S.  District  Court. 

Q.  5.     Have  you  also  been  frequently  called  as  an  expert 


184 

iQ  cases  in  the  U.  S.  Surveyor-Genemrs  office  in  Califoriua^ 
in  reference  to  Spanish  grants  ?     A.  I  have. 

Q.  6.  The  attention  of  witness  is  here  called  to  Exhibit 
S.  R.  T,,  No.  9,  commencing  on  page  12  with  the  words : 
Being  in  the  field,  at  the  place  named  "El  Corte  de  Madera 
del  Presidio  de  San  Francisco,"  and  ending  on  page  15, 
with  the  signatures,  "  Haro,  Fernando  Feliz,  Jose  de  la  C. 
Sanchez,  Tomas  Jeremias  Jones,  and  Manuel  Sanchez;" 
and  particularly  to  the  description  of  the  boundaries  therein 
contained  of  the  rancho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  com- 
mencing at  the  words:  *'they  led  the  way  to  the  west,  to  a 
Canada,  where  they  showed  me  a  forest  of  tall  trees  which 
they  called  redwoods,  in  the  canada  itself  and  some  little 
valleys  which  form  the  base  of  the  high  pea'<  called  '  Pal- 
mas,"  which  forest  is  called  'Corte  Madera  del  Presidio;' 
a  little  brook  with  a  willow  thicket,  and  the  remains  of  a 
rancheria  called  'Animas;'  thence  continuing  the  examin- 
ation and  view  of  said  lands,  they  led  me  north  to  another 
arroyo  and  forest  of  redwood  trees  called  Corte  Madera  de 
San  Pablo,  and  they  said  it  was  the  boundary  with  the  Pu- 
eblo of  San  Rafael;  and  thence  continuing  the  examination 
south,  as  far  as  Point  Tiburon,  which  they  said  was  the  limit 
in  that  direction  ;  we  continued  to  the  west  to  the  point  of 
an  estero,  which  empties  into  the  bight  formed  by  said  Point 
Tiburon  and  Point  Cabal los  on  the  south,  and  which  ends 
at  the  entrance  of  said  canada,  where  is  situated  the  house 
of  the  owner  of  said  lands,  Don  Juan  Read,  the  arroyo,  wil- 
low thicket,  and  forest  of  redwood  trees  named  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio,  aforesaid,  which  they  said  was  the  last 
boundary  of  the  said  lands  pertaining  to  the  ranch  referred 
to,  of  '  Corte  de  Madera,'  of  Seiior  Read." 

From  the  description  of  boundaries  just  read  to  you  from 
Exhibit  S.  R.  T.,  No.  9,  would  you  as  a  surveyor  be  able  to 
go  upon  the  ground  and  locate  the  calls  as  given?  A.  I 
have  read  the  description  contained  in  the  first  part  of  the 
question  propounded,  and  will  answer  in  regard  to  the  whole 
question  :  "  No  surveyor  of  ordinary  intelligence  could  have 
any  difficulty  in  defining  the  calls  of  the  grant  as  described 
in  the  papers  exhibited  ;  they  are  well  known  marks,  about 
which  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  controversy. 

Q.  7.  Exhibit  S.  R.  T.,  No.  6,  is  now  shown  the  witness, 
and  he  is  asked  whether  the  calls  set  forth  in  the  previous 
question  are  delineated  on  said  exhibit ;  if  so,  state  the  calls 
he  recognizes,  or  whether  he  can  locate  the  calls  on  said 
ranch. 


185 

Objectetl  to  by  Sol.  A.  Sharp,  for  the  reasons  set  forth  in 
^objections  to  question  No.  10,  p.  509. 

A.  Exhibit  "  N"o,  6,"  has  been  shown  to  me  ;  I  believe 
\t  deUneutes  precisely  the  land  that  was  granted  to  John 
Head,  known  by  the  name  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio. 

Q.  8.  Witness  is  shown  Exhibit  No.  6,  and  is  asked  if 
this  exhibit  conforms  to  the  official  map  of  the  survey  of 
the  liancho  of  Corte  de  Madera  del  Presidio;  and  if  not, 
4n  what  respect  does  it  differ  from  said  map. 

A.  I  find  that  Exhibit  No.  6  accords  (excepting  in  the 
numbers  of  intermediate  status  and  other  descriptive  calls) 
with  official  map,  from  Station  C.  M.  P.  No.  181,  around  the 
margin  of  said  map  southeasterly  to  the  extreme  southeast- 
«ern  point  of  said  map,  and  northwesterly  to  Station,  markeA 
*' Redwood  post,  P.  Q.  99,  W.  R.  203;"  also  excepting  the 
marsh  lands  shown  upon  said  Exhibit,  which  are  excluded 
on  the  map  of  the  said  official  survey;  Exhibit  No.  6  S.  R. 
T.  di tiers  from  map  of  official  survey  in  this,  that  Exhibit 
No.  6,  S.  R.  T,,  includes  the  land,  lying  west  of  a  straight 
line  drawn  between  point  on  official  map  marked  "  Red 
Post,  R  A.  99,  W.  R  203"  and  post  marked  "  C.  M.  181," 
and  lying  between  a  line  so  drawn  and  stream  marked  on 
^aid  Exhibit  as  Arroyo  del  Gorte  Madera  del  Presidio, 
which  tract  is  included  in  the  exhibit  referred  to,  but  is  ex- 
cluded in  the  map  of  the  official  survey. 

Q.  9.  Have  you  any  personal  knowledge  of  the  topo- 
graphy of  the  country  and  the  geographical  features  of  the 
same,  as  delineated  on  the  western  and  northern  portion  of 
.said  exhibit  '-6.  S.  R,  T.?"     A.     I  have. 

Q.  10.  Can  you  point  out  the  locality  of  the  remains  of  a 
rancheria  called  ^'  Animas  ?"  A.  There  is  a  mound  to  the 
northwest  less  than  a  quarter  of  a  mile  from  the  house  ot 
Juan  Read,  which  shows  the  remains  of  an  old  rancheria. 

Q.  11.  Can  you  point  out  on  said  exhibit,  a  little  brook, 
and  ajwillow  thicket  ?     A.     I  can. 

Q.  12.  What  is  the  brook  or  arroyo  called  on  this  Ex- 
hibit ?  A.  The  brook  is  the  Arroyo  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio;  the  willow  thicket  is  a  little  to  the  southwesterly 
of  the  ranch  house  of  Juan  Read,  as  marked  on  said  exhibit* 

Q.  13.  Can  you  point  out  the  head  or  source  and  course 
of  said  brook  or  arroyo,  from  its  source  to  its  mouth?  A. 
I  cannot  tell  precisely  its  source,  but  it  is  a  little  to  the  west- 
ward of  the  point  delineated  on  this  Exhibit,  and  the  course 
of  the  stream  is  correctly  shown  upon  this  Exhibit,  from  the 
point  indicated  at  the  northeast  of  Tamalpais,  to  its  mouth, 
at  the  head  of  Richardson's  Bay. 


186- 

Q.  14,  When  you  mention  Tanialpais,  do  jou  uveuu  the^ 
liigh  rocky  peaks,  as  indicated  on  this  Exhibit?     A.     I  do^ 

Q.  15.  Can  you  h>cate  an  this  Exhibit  the  forest  of  red- 
wood trees,  called  the  "  Co rte  Madera  del  Presidio?*'  A.. 
The  southern  point  of  said  grove  is  near  the  letter  ''^C  "  oit. 
said  Exhibit,  aixl  extends  up  the  creek  indefinitely^ 

Q.  16.  Can  you  locate  on  the  said  Exhibit  the  arroyo' 
called  "  Holon  V     A,    I  can  ;.  as  it  is  plainly  indicated. 

Q.  17,  And  a  forest  of  redwood  trees  called  "Corte  Ma- 
deira de  San  Pablo?"  A.  I  can,  the  point  is  indicated  on^ 
the  Exhibit  Corte  Madera  de  San  Pablo. 

Q.  18.  What  forms  the  northern  boundary  at  the  rancho- 
of  Corte  de  Madera,  as  describeti  in  the  rect)rd  af  juridical 
possession  ?     A.  The  Arroyo  Holon  and  the  Corte  de  Ma- 
dera de  San  Pablo, 

Q.  19.  Witness  is  shown  '^  S.  R.  T.  No,  8,"  and  is 
asked,  and  his  attention  being  called  to  the  following  words 
in  the  juridical  possession  :  ^^  Tliey  led  rne  north  to  another 
arroyo  and  forest  of  redwood  trees,  called  also  Corte  de  Ma- 
dera de  San  Pablo,  and  they  said  it  was  the  boundary  with 
the  Pueblo  of  San  Rafael;" — can  yon  rec*ognize  on  this  Ex- 
hibit the  southern  boundary  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Rafaeh 
and  can  you  apply  the  same  to  the  northern  boundary  of 
the  Raneho of  Corte  de  Madera  del  Presidio,  as  shown  on 
said  Exhibit  No,  6,  and  reconcile  them  as  consistent  with 
each  other  and  with  the  description  you  have  read  in  the 
record  of  juridical  possession  ?  A.  The  southern  line  of  the 
Pueblo  of  San  Rafael  is  delineated  on  this  map,  and  is 
marked,  as  all  the  boundaries  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Rafael 
are  on  this  Exhibit,  by  a  yellow  line  ;  the  creek,  *'  Corte  de 
Madera  del  Presidio,"  is  also  delineated;  and  a  little  to  the 
north  of  that,  and  at  the  mouth  of  another  creek,  which 
must  be  the  Holon,  there  is  represented  another  creek, 
which  is  in  the  southern  boundary  of  the  Pueblo  of  San 
Rafael,  as  represented  by  the  yellow  line  on  said  Exhibit. 
This  yellow  line  leaves  a  slight  interval  between  the  creek 
and  its  entrance  into  the  San  Pablo  Bay ;  for  the  greater 
portion  of  the  distance  the  Holon  is  the  boundary  of  the 
Innds  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Rafael  on  the  south.  The  jurid- 
ical possession  of  the  Raneho  of"  Corte  de  Madera"  on  the 
north,  Was  the  Arroyo  Holon,  which  it  followed  to  its 
mouth,  and  corresponds  nearly  with  the  southern  line  of  the 
lands  of  the  Pueblo  of  San  Rafael,  as  already  described  ; 
and  the  act  of  juridical  possession  of  the  Raneho  of  Corte 
de  Madera  del  Presidio  reconciles,  very  nearly,  the  title  of 


187 

the  "  Corte  de  Madera  del  Presidio  "  and  the  map  "Exhibit 
No.  8,"  shown  me. 


Wednesday,  March  15th. 
Met  pursuant  to   adjournment,    and   adjourned    till    IQ 
o'clock  to-morrow. 


Thursday,  March  16th. 

Met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Parties  being  present, 
direct  examination  of  Wm.  J.  Lewis  continued. 

Q.  20.  From  the  knowledge  you  have  of  the  geography, 
topography  and  natural  objects  of  that  part  of  the  country 
marked  on  Exhibit  ''S.  R.  T.  ^N'o.  6,"  delineating  the  '^Ar- 
royo  Corte  de  Madera  del  Presidio,"  can  there  be  found  a 
series  of  objects  which  will  answer  the  calls  as  described  in 
the  juridical  possession  of  the  Rancho  Corte  de  Madera  del 
Presidio,  named  as  the  '' Rancheria,"  called  "Animas," 
"  Willow  Thicket,"  "  Little  Brook  or  Arroyo,"  "  Forest  of 
Redwood  Trees,"  which  would  C(jnstitute  and  furnish  the 
objects  for  the  western  boundary  of  said  Rancho  ''  Corte  de 
Madera  del  Presidio,"  as  described  in  said  papers  of  juridi- 
cal possession,  in  anj^  other  place  in  the  vicinity  ?  A.  I 
cannot  find  them  anywhere  else. 

Q.  21.  Have  you  ever  seen  in  that  vicinit}^  any  con- 
secutive set  of  calls  and  objects  which  could  reasonably  be 
mistaken  for  these  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Sharp  as  immaterial. 

A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  22.  Are  those  calls  and  objects  so  distinctly  marked 
as  to  be  unmistakable  to  a  surveyor  accustomed  to  tracing 
and  locating  such  objects  from  descriptions?  A.  They 
are. 

Q.  23.  Was  you  acquainted  with  R.  C.  Mathewson  in 
his  lifetime,  and  his  qualifications  for  interpreting  and 
fixing  the  boundaries  of  Mexican  points  from  the  original 
title  papers  and  records  of  juridical  possession  ?  A.  I  was 
acquainted  with  Doctor  Mathewson  in  his  lifetime.  I  know 
that  he  was  a  surveyor  of  great  ability  ;  had  much  expe- 
rience in  the  location  of  titles  of  Spanish  and  Mexican  land 
grants. 

Q.  24.  From  your  knowledge  of  Doctor  Mathewson, 
and  from  what  you  have  read  of  the  description  in  the  act 


188 

of  juridical  possession  of  the  "  Gorte  Madera  del  Presidio/' 
where  do  you  believe  Doctor  Mathewson,  if  he  had  studied 
the  said  description  as  given  in  the  juridical  possession^ 
together  with  all  the  maps  and  evidence  which  you  have 
had  before  you,  would  have  located  the  western  boundary 
of  the  said  feancho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ?" 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Sharp  as  immaterial,  irrelevant  and 
incompetent. 

A.  He  would  have  made  the  western  boundary  the 
Arro}' o  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  as  the  same  is  located 
on  Exhibit  "  S.  R.  T.  J^To.  6/' 

Q,  25.  As  a  surveyor  and  civil  engineer,  do  you  believe 
that  any  fair,  frank,  intelligent  surveyor,  with  the  sole 
object  of  ascertaining  the  correct  western  boundary  of  said 
rancho,  could  place  tlie  said  western  boundary  in  any  other 
locality  than  the  one  designated  on  said  Exhibit  "  S.  E.  T. 
^o.  6  ?" 

Same  objection  by  Mr.  Sharp  as  to  foregoing  question. 

A.  I  think  that  he  could  not. 

Q.  26.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  Mexican  mode  of 
measuring  and  ascertaining  the  quantity  of  lands  in  Mexi- 
can grants,  upon  giving  juridical  possession  of  the  same  in 
California  in  former  times  ?  A.  I  am  ;  the  mode  is 
described  correctly  in  the  testimony  of  witness  Hopkins,  in 
this  case,  as  read  to  me  on  the  day  before  yesterday. 

Q.  27.  Witness  is  asked  to  mark  on  Exhibit  "  S.  R.  T. 
6  "  the  measurements  as  made  in  giving  the  juridical  pos- 
session of  the  Rancho  of  "  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,"  as 
the  said  measurements  are  set  forth  in  Exhibit  S.  R.  T.  ]N'o. 
9,  commencing  on  page  21,  line  12  from  top. 

Same  objection  by  Mr.  Sharp  as  foregoing. 

A.  I  shall  do  this  to  the  best  of  my  ability  ;  but  the 
measurements  cannot  be  reconciled.  Taking  the  first  call, 
they  measured  to  the  arroyo  called  Holon,  90  cordeles  of  50 
varas  each  from  the  solar.  The  Holon  is  a  definite  object 
or  line,  and  measuring  in  a  contrary  direction  from  north  to 
south,  ninety  cordeles  would  place  the  solar  at  the  letter 
**  o  "  in  the  word  "  Presidio,"  a  little  to  the  south  of  Juan 
Read's  house.  "  At  the  Holon,  the  person  interested  fixed 
there  a  known  point  as  a  mark,  and  said  that  he  would 
place  there  a  bound.  From  this  point,  taking  a  direction 
from  north  to  south,  the  measurement  was  continued  to 
Point  Tiburon,  and  they  measured  200  cordeles,  said  point 
serving  as  a  mark  and  limit ;  he  promised  to  place  there 
the  corresponding  bound."     The  distance  called  for  could 


189 

iidt  have  been  measured  from  north  to  soiitli,  but  mast 
lliave  been  measured  in  a  southeasterly  direction,  tormiuat- 
ing  somewhere  about  the  point  that  I  mark  '*L  "  on  said 
Exhibit  "S.  R.  T.  No.  6,"  which  is  one  inch  on  the  map, 
representing  tvventy  chains,  to  the  west  of  the  letter  **  T  "  in 
the  expression  "T,  1,  N".  R.,  5  W."  Witness  m.irks  said 
letter  "  L  "  in  red  ink.     Witness,  continuing,  says  : 

I  read  in  continuation  from  said  Exhibit  **No.  9,  S,  K, 
'T :"  "  Thence  continuing  the  measurement,  from  cast  to  west, 
to  the  mouth  of  the  canada  and  the  point  of  the  sausal, 
which  is  near  the  estero  lying  to  the  east  of  the  house  of  the 
person  interested,  which  is  at  J3resent  on  tlie  ranclns  tl^/e 
were  measured  94  eordeles ;''  I  have  measured  from  letter 
^'  L,''  94  eordeles,  to  a  point  that  I  have  marked  on  s  lid  Ex- 
hibit "S.  R.  T.,  :N'o.  6,"  with  the  letter  "eT"  in  red  ink  ; 
.this  direction  is  westerly,  to  the  north  of  west,  Witne.-s, 
continuing  the  quotation,  says  :  "And  from  this  last  point, 
continuing  the  measurement,  from  east  to  west,  along  the 
last  line,  to  the  place  of  beginning,  they  iinished  by  meas- 
ing  sixteen  eordeles."  I  measured  sixteen  eordeles  from 
the  letter  J  to  a  point  which  t  have  marked  with  the  letter 
**  W,"  in  red  ink,  instead  of  coming  to  the  point  (d'  begin- 
Jiing,  which  is  the  letter  "  0  "  in  the  word  Presidio  ;  there 
is  a  distance  of  30  eordeles  which  juridical  measurement 
lacks  of  closing, 

Q.  28,  Will  you  please  turn  to  page  No.  11  in  Exhibit 
S.  R.  T.,  No.  9,  and  read  from  the  top  of  said  page  to  the 
«nd  of  the  third  line  on  the  succeeding  page,  ending  with 
the  word  "Tiburon  V 

Witness  reads  :  "In  continuation  I,  the  aforesaid  Alcalde, 
caused  to  appear  before  me  also,  and  those  of  my  assistance, 
the  citizen  Manuel  Sanchez,  by  occupation  a  laborer,  of 
whom  I  received  oath,  which  he  made  by  God  and  the  sign 
of  the  Holy  Cross,  in  form,  under  which  he  promised  to 
speak  the  truth  ;  and  being  asked  for  his  knowledge  of  the 
lands,  limits  and  boundaries  of  the  lands  pertaining  to  the 
rancho  of  *  Corte  de  Madera  del  Presidio,'  he  said  "that  for 
28  years  he  has  been  a  resident  of  this  jurisdiction,  and 
knows  that  the  lands  of  the  aforesaid  rancho  are  of  citizen 
Juan  Read;  and  they  have  for  boundaries,  on  the  part  to- 
wards the  port  of  San  Francisco,  on  the  south,  the  bay 
formed  by  the  Point  Caballos  and  Tiburon  on  the  east, 
which,  running  inland  to  the  west,  terminates  in  an  estero 
and  a  canada,  which  follows  the  same  direction  as  far  as  a 
forest  of  redwood  trees  called  ^  Corte  de   Madera  del   Pre- 


sidio,'  which  lies  at  the  foot  of  a  high  peak  of  that  name; 
oil  the  north,  towards  the  Pueblo  of  San  Rafael,  the  bound- 
ary i&an  arroyo  called  Holon,and  a  forest  of  redwood  trees^ 
which  is  also  called  '^  Corte  de  Ma.dera  de  San  Pablo;'  and 
on  the  east  they  terminate  in  said  Point  Tiburon." 

Q.  29.  Point  oat,  if  you  please,  on  Exhibit  "  &.  K  T.. 
Ko.  6/'  the-  bay  formed  by  Point  Caballos  and  Tiburon  on 
the  ea^t,  whicb  ternvinates  in  an  estero  and  canada  running 
as  referred  to  above,  A.  This  Bav  is  designated  on  said 
Exhibit  S.  R.  T.  Na  6Vas  "  Richardson's  Bay,"  w^hieh  bay 
>s  an  arm,  or  branch  of  the  Bay  of  San  Francisco. 

Q.  30.  What  part  of  that  bay  which  you  call  "  Richard- 
son's Bay  "  would  form  the  southern  boundary  of  the  land 
and  of  the  Rancha  of  "  Corte.  Madera  del  Presidio,"  in- 
cluded within  the  measurements  tbat  you  have  last  made? 
A.  The  ran<3h()  would  be  bounded  on  the  south  by  the 
northern  and  iK>rthwe3tern  portion  of  Richardson's  Bay, 
i^rom  the  mouth  of  the  estero  around  to  a  point  which  I 
mark  *'''X  "  in  red  ink.- 

Q.  31.  Please  lo  )k  at  point  marked  "old  saw  mill,''  on 
Pixhibit  ''  S.  R.  T.  6,"  and  answer,  could  a  line  drawn  from 
said  point  marked  '^old  saw  mill,"  to  any  point  on  the 
^^  Holon,"  exclude  the  tract  of  land  colored  green  on  said 
Exhibit ''  S.  R.  T.  6,"  marked  "  tract  of  land  owned  by  and 
referre  I  to  in  the  objections  by  S.  R.  Throckmorton."  A. 
It  could  not,  by  any  possibility. 

Q.  32.  Is  the  said  tract  of  land  last  described,  colored 
green  on  said  Exhibit,  described  as  "  tract  of  land,"  etc.^ 
and  referred  to  in  last  question,  clearly  and  certainly  within 
and  to  the  east  of  the  western  boundary  of  said  Rancho 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  as  described  on  said  Exhibit 
S.  R.  T.  No.  6  ?  A.  It  is  clearly  and  unmistakably  within 
tind  to  the  eastward  of  the  western  boundary  of  the  Rancha 
of  Corte  de  Madera,  as  shown  upon  said  Exhibit. 

Q.  33.  Is  it  also  within  the  northern  boundary  of  said 
rancho,  as  so  laid  down  on  said  Exhibit  ?  A.  It  undoubt- 
edly is,  and  within  all  the  boundaries, 

Q.  34*  Please  look  at  said  papers  ol  juridical  possession, 
Exhibit  S.  R.  T.  Ko.  9,  on  page  No.  11,  and  point  out  the 
boundary  on  the  north,  on  Ex.  S.  R.  T.  No.  6,  as  described 
in  said  paper.  A.  In  the  papers  it  is  said  that  *' on  the 
north,  towards  the  Pueblo  of  San  Rafael,  the  boundary  is  an 
arroyo  called  Holon,  and  a  forest  of  redwood  trees,  which  is 
also  called  '  Corte  de  Madera  de  San  Pablo  ;'  "  that  bound- 
ary is  marked  on  Ex.  S.  R.  T.  No.  6,  and  designated  as  the 


191 

Arroyo  Holon,  and  there  is  also  marked,  "  Corte  Madera  de 
San  Piiblo,''  extending  on  both  sides  of  said  arroyo. 

Q.  Sij.  Please  state  where  that  Arroyo  Holon  takes  its 
rise,  and  thcj  direction  in  which  it  runs.  A.  The  point 
where  it  rises,  is  indicated  by  the  letter  "B,"  and  is  a  little 
to  the  east wa I'd  of  the  Arroyo  of  Gorte  Madera  del  Presidio  ; 
its  course  is  eastward  for  a  larger  portion  of  the  distance;  it 
then  change-;  its  course  to  the  northeastward,  which  is  its 
general  course  till  it  reaches  the  Bay  of  San  Francisco,  and 
fs  delineated  on  Exhibit  "  S.  R.  T.  ^o.  6,"  as  the  northern 
boundary  of  the  raneho  of  "  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio." 
Continuing  the  description — "and  on  the  east,  they  term- 
inated at  the  Point  of  Til)uron." 

Q.  36.  Can  you  take  Exhibit  "  S,  E.  T.  I^o.  6  "  and  in^ 
<licute  thereon,  the  point  in  said  Tiburon,  at  which  said 
boundary  would  terminate  on  the  east  ?  A.  I  could  not  in- 
dicate it  by  any  description  found  on  page  12. 

Vr OSS- Examination  by  Mullen  ^  Hyde. 

Q.  37.  Please  indicate  on  said  Exhibit  S.  R.  T.  I^o.  6, 
from  all  the  information  and  data  that  hav^e  been  presented 
to  3'ou  in  this  case,  how  tar,  from  the  letter  L  in  red  ink,  as 
marked  thereon  by  you,  the  boundary  in  that  direction 
would  lay  ? 

Objected  to  by  Sol.  A.  Sharp,  on  the  ground  that  only  a 
part  of  the  instructions  have  been  shown  to  the  witness,  and 
as  being  immaterial,  irrelevant  and  incompetent. 

A.  1  think  the  point  "  L,"  is  in  the  southern  boundar}^ 
of  the  raneho. 

Q.  38.  Would  a  direct  line,  that  would  pass  through  the 
letter  L,  and  from  southwest  to  northeast,  represent  approx- 
imately tlie  line  of  boundary  in  that  direction? 

Same  objection  by  Sol.  A.  Sharp,  iis  foregoing. 

A.  I  think  it  would  represent  approximately  the  south- 
eastern boundary  of  the  raneho. 

Q.  39.  Have  you  any  interest,  immediate  or  remote,  in 
the  results  of  this  investigation,  and  are  you  related  by 
blood  or  marriage  to  any  of  the  parties  to  this  controversy? 
A.  I  have  no  interest,  direct  or  remote,  in  the  matters 
involved  in  this  controversy,  and  do  not  know  that  I  am 
connected  by  blood  or  marriage  with  any  of  the  parties  in 
this  controversy. 

Witness  explains  that  the  cordele  used  in  the  foregoing 
measurements  was  of  the  length  of  50  varas,  as  set  forth  oa 
page  19  of  Exhibit  S.  R.  T.  No.  9. 

Adjourned  till  lOJ  o'clock  to-morrow. 


192 

P'RiDAr,  March  1 7th. 
Met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Direct  Examination  of  Mr,  Lewis  resumed  by  Consent. 

Q.  40.  (Calling  witness'  attention  to  Exhibit  "  S.  R.  T. 
No.  9")  Do  you  find  in  said  act  of  juridical  possession, 
namely : 

1st.  The  examination  of  witnesses  for  the  purpose  uf 
ascertaining  the  boundaries  of  the  Rancho  of  Gorte  Madera 
del  Presidio,  on  the  26th  day  of  the  month  of  November, 
1835? 

2d.  The  going  upon  the  ground  with  the  witnesses,  on 
the  27th  day  of  November,  1835,  and  having  them  then  go 
upon  the  ground  and  point  out  the  boundaries,  to  which 
they  had  testified  on  the  26th,  for  the  purpose  of  certainly 
identifying  said  boundaries  ? 

3d.  The  assembling  in  the  field  of  the  officers  giving  pos- 
session, accompanied  by  the  witnesses  and  other  parties,  on 
the  28th  day  of  November,  1835,  for  the  purpose  of  measur- 
ing and  ascertaining  the  quantity  of  land  embraced  in  said 
juridical  possession  ? 

Are  the  foregoing  acts,  as  stated  in  subdivisions  1,  2  and 
3  of  the  foregoing  question,  described  in  said  Exhibit  as 
separate  and  distinct  acts?  A.  They  are  found  in  said 
Exhibit  S.  R.  T.  No.  9,  and  are  thereon  described  as  separate 
and  distinct  acts,  performed  at  the  respective  dates,  as  set 
forth  in  said  Exhibit. 

Q.  41.  Witness  is  now  shown  paper  marked  "  Ex.  L.  R. 
Dep.  Sur.,"  and  say  what  it  is.  A.  Field  notes  of  the  final 
survey  of  the  Rancho  of  El  Corte  Madera  del  Presidi(\ 
finally  confirmed  to  heirs  of  John  Read;  surveyed,  corn- 
piled  and  arranged  under  instructions  from  the  IJ.  S.  Sur- 
veyor-General, by  Leander  Ransom,  Deputy  Surveyor,  in 
November  and  December,  1873. 

Q,  42.  Witness'  attention  is  called  to  the  map  accom- 
panying the  same,  and  asked  to  observe  thereon  character 
indicating  summit,  and  marked  ''  Mt.  Tabaron."  A.  I  do; 
it  is  found  in  S.  31,  T.  1  N.,  5  W.,  and  is  marked  immedi- 
ately north  of  section  31. 

Q.  43.  What  is  the  distance  from  said  Arroyo  Holon 
from  the  head  thereof  to  the  summit  of  said  Tiburon  ?  A. 
It  is  exactly  200  cordeles  from  the  intersection  of  the  Tp. 
line  and  the  Holon  to  the  summit  of  Mount  Tiburon,  said 
cordeles  being  of  the  length  of  50  varas. 


193 

Q.  44.  What  is  the  scale  of  the  map  on  which  yon  malce 
tthese  measnremeuts  ?     A.  Forty  chains  t<»  the  inch. 

Q.  45,  What  is  the  title  of  this  map  en  which  you  now 
measure?  A,  "Plat  of  the  Rancho  of  Ooite  Madera  del 
Presidio,  finally  confirmed  to  the  heirs  of  John  Read,  sur- 
^eyed,  under  instructions  from  U,  S.  Surveyor-General,  by 
Leander  Ransom,  U,  S.  Deputy  Surveyor,  October,   1873, 

-containing acres  ;  va^*.  16°  81'  E,     Scale,  4  chains  to 

sthe  inch," 

Q.  46,  Bo  jou  consider  yourself  an  expert  in  matters 
pertaining  to  the  location  and  surveys  of  Spanish  and  Mex- 
ican land  grants  in  California  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Gardner  as  incoinpetent,  arrelevanc, 
and  immaterial. 

A.  I  do. 

Q,  47.  Have  you  given  your  previous  testimony  'n  thi?j 
<^ase  as  an  expert  ?     A.  I  have. 

S.  R,  Throckmorton  here  states  that  this  witness  was  and 
is  called  as  an  expert,  and  in  that  capacity  he  regards  his 
stestimony  as  subject  to  cross-examination 

Q.  48.  Do  you  find  in  the  paper  now  before  you,  in  tiie 
:Spanish  language,  which  is  the  record  of  juridical  possession 
of  the  raneho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  the  words: 
-^^hasiala'punla  del  Tihuronf"     A.  I  do. 

Q.  49.  In  what  connection  are  those  words  used  1  A.  ] 
<io  not  understand  the  question. 

Q,  50.  Do  you  know  what  paper  that  is  you  haye  before 
JOU?  A.  It  is  the  original  record  of  the  juridical  posses- 
sion of  the  raneho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio. 

Q.  51.  What  term  is  therein  used  to  describe  the  line 
from  north  to  south,  which  runs  to  Point  Tiburon  ?  A.  ^'De 
este  punto  tornando  el  rumbo  de  N,  a  S,  se  eontinuo  la  medida 
hasia  la  punta  del  Tiburon,' ' 

Q.  52.  Will  you  please  write  that  in  English?  <*From 
this  point,  taking  the  direction  from  north  to  south,  the 
measurement  was  continued  n^  to 'Ha  Punta  del  Tiburon.'^ 
To  translate  the  word  "punta,"  I  refer  to  "Leones,  Kew- 
man  and  Barretti's  Spanish  and  English  Dictionary,  ^  Velas- 
quez'  Edition,'  "  which  is  good  authority  :  *'•  1st,  Punta,  the 
**  sharp  end  of  an  instrument;  2d,  extremity  of  an3.thing 
^*  which  terminates  in  an  angle,  top,  head,  summit ;  3d,  point, 
"  head  land,  promontory  ;  4th,  coulter  of  a  plough  ;  5th,  a 
**  small  part  of  anything  ;  6th,  act  of  a  dog  in  pointing  out 
**game;  7th,  tartness,  sourish  taste;  hacer  punta,  to  excel, 
"  to  surpass,  to  oppose,  to  contradict,  to  take  the  road  to ; 


194 

''^'(eoll.)  to  knit;  (Met,)  to  be  the  first,  the  leader;  8th^ 
*' sharp  bodkin;  pL  1st,  bone-lace;  2d,  horns  of  a  bull;  de 
"^■pnntaSj  on  tiptoeSy  soi'tly  ;  pwiias,  in  a  dress,  scallops, 
''  The  words  dd  tiburon.,  used  in  the-  phrascy  meao  '  of  the- 
"shark."" 

Q.  5S.  If  you  translate  tbe  words  of  which  yo«  have  given> 
the  English,  the  original  of  w^hich  is  set  out  in  answer  to* 
qestion  51,  ''Up  to  the  top  of  Tibaron^'"  would  it  be  a  good- 
translation  ?  A.  It  would,  according  to  the  second  defini-^ 
tion  of  the  word  punt  a,  as  already  given  ,^ 

Q.  54.  If  it  were  translated  ''  up  to  the-  Promontory  of 
Tiburon,"'  would  it  be  a  good  translation  ?  A.  It  would  ; 
eorresponding  to  the  third  definition  already  given. 

Q.  If  it  were  translated  by  the  words:  "^up  to  the sum^ 
mit  of  Tibnron,"  would  that  be  a  good  translation  ?  It 
would  ;  and  corresponds  to  the  second  definition  of  the  word 
punta,  whicrh  I  have  already  given. 

Q.  55,  Witness  is  again  shown  "-Ransom's-  mapyEx.  L^ 
li.,  Dep.  Sur.,"  and  is  asked,  Would  that  last  definition  of 
the  S-panish  phrase  referred  to  indicate  the  su^m mit  of  Ti- 
buron,  as  marked  by  the  sign  of  summit  on  said  Hansom's 
map?     A.  It  would r 

Q.  56.  Will  you  please  measure  on  said  map,  from  said 
summit  referred  to,  to  the  water  hue  on  the  southeastern 
terminus  of  said  promontory  ?  A.  I  measure  from  said 
summit  to  stake  No.  393,  which  I  believe  to  be  the  south- 
eastern point  or  extremity  of  said  promontory,  and  find  the 
distance  to  be  Mxy  cordeles,  which  o^oes  to  the  water  line. 

Q.  57.  Please  measure  from  said  summit  to  the  water  at 
the  extremity,  at  the  southwestern  terminus  of  said  prom- 
ontory, indicated  by  the  numbers  "353,"  near  the  letter  I 
in  the  letters  T.  L  S.     A.  The  distance  is  fifty- two  cordeles. 

Q.  58,  Between,  and  including  those  two  last  termini, 
have  you  found  in  the  papers  of  juridical  possession.  Exhibit 
S.  R.  T.,  No.  9,  any  water  line  called  for  ? 

Objected,  by  Mr.  Brooks,  on  the  ground  that  the  papers 
referred  to  speak  for  themselves.  By  Mr.  Sharp,  because 
only  a  portion  of  the  papers  have  been  shown  to  the  witness. 

A.  The  two  termini  referred  to  in  the  question,  at  the 
water  line,  are  not  referred  to  in  the  papers  referring  to  ju- 
ridical possession  ;  and  the  nearest  approach  to  a  water  line, 
in  which  they  contiued  to  the  west  to  the  point  of  an  estu- 
ary empties  into  the  bight  formed  by  said  point  of  Tiburon 
and  Point  Caballos  on  the  south,  and  which  ends  at  the  en- 
trance of  said  Canada,  etc. 


195 

Q.  59,  Are  jou  sufficiently  acquainted  with  that  part  of 
the  promontory  of  Tiburon  which  is  between  the  summit, 
as  (Jescribi'd  on  that  map  (L.  R.,  Dep.  Sur.)  and  the  south- 
«ern  water  line  thereof,  to  be  able  to  say  whether  or  not  it 
«eould  have  been  measured  with  a  facility  equal  to  that  of 
ithe  line  from  the  summit  to  the  Hoi  on  ?  A,  I  am  not  suf- 
Hciently  tkmiliar  with  the  ground  to  answer  that  question. 

Mulkn  ^  Hyde  Oross^  Examine. 

Q.  60.  LMease  state  what  meaning,  as  a  surv'Cyor  and  ex- 
pert, in  locating  Spanish  and  Mexican  grants,  from  informa- 
tion and  data  contained  in  the  record  of  jundical  possession 
thereof*  you  would  attach  and  give  to  the  words  following, 
to  wit  (and  which  words  I  now  read  from  the  English  trans- 
lation of  the  original  juridical  possession  of  the  Rancho 
Oorte  Madera  del  Piesidio,  as  set  forth  in  Ex. '' S.  R,  T.^ 
i^o.  9,"  on  tile  in  this  case) :  '*  So  that  the  square  league  of 
Lmd  which  the  rancho  of  Corte  Madera  contains,  forms  a 
.square  of  20,000  Castill.ian  varas,"  A.  I  presume  that  it 
means  that  it  is  equivalent  to  a  square  measuring  5,000 
varas,  or  one  league  on  each  side. 

Q.  61.  Do  the  words  20,000  Castillian  varas,  as  set  forth 
above,  mean  lineal  or  superficial  measurement  ?  A.  It  un- 
doubtedly means  lineal  measurement. 

Adjourned  till  10  o'clock  to-morrow. 


Saturday,  March  18th. 
Met  pur.suiut  to  adjournment. 

Cross-Examiaation.  by  Mr.  Brooks. 

Q.  62.  Where  were  you  born  ?  A.  Chester  County, 
Pennsylvania. 

Q.  63.     What  is  your  natural  tongue  ?     A.     English. 

Q.  64.  When  did  you  leave  Pennsylvania  and  at  what 
time  did  you  come  to  California?  A.  I  left  Pennsylvania 
about  Februarv  1st,  1849,  and  reached  California  June  9th, 
1849. 

Q.  65.  Have  you  remained  in  California  since  that  time  ? 
A.  I  have,  with  the  exception  of  two  visits  to  the  east,  one 
in  1857,  of  four  months,  and  one  in  1870,  of  about  S^  months. 

Q.  66.  In  what  occupation  did  you  engage  on  your  ar* 
rival,  and  how  long  did  you  continue  in  such  occupation? 


A.  I  first  went  ta  the  southern  niines,  near  StMiora,  lo  this 
Btate,  and  worked  as  a  miner  ;  returned  in  November  fol- 
lowing to  this  city,  went  to  San  Jose^  and  engaj^ed  in  Feb- 
bruarjy  1850^  made  a  survey  of  the  Los>  Coehes  Rancho 
under  the  Court  of  First  Instance. 

Q,  67.  Did  you  then  enga2:ein  the  occupation  of  survey- 
ing as  a  business  ?     A.     I  did. 

Q.  68.  Have  you  continued  exchisively  in  that  business* 
ever  since  ?  A.  I  have  continued  in  the  business  of  sur- 
veying and  civil  engineering  ever  since,  but  I  also  have 
engaged  a  portion  of  the  time  in  farming. 

Q.  69.  Where  have  you  resided  during  that  time,  as 
your  home  ?  A.  I  resided  near  San  Jose  up  to  June,  1855, 
from  February,  1850 — and  since  that  time  in  San  Francisco. 

Q.  70.  Were  you  educated  as  a  surveyor,  and  if  so, 
when  and  where?  A.  I  was  educated  as  a  surveyor  and 
mathematician  under  the  instruction  of  my  father,  Enoch 
Lewis,  at  E^ew  Garden  Boarding  School,  Chester  County, 
of  which  he  was  principal ;  my  education  extended  from 
early  youth,  to  April  1st,  1828,  when  I  enoraged  as  chairman 
on  the  survey  of  the  Philadelphia  and  Columb  a  Rail  l\oad, 
in  the  service  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  and  continued 
following  surveying  until  I  came  to  the  State  of  California, 
with  occasional  interruptions;  the  only  other  business  I  was 
engaged  in  during  that  time,  was  that  from  1838  to  1841  I 
was  engaged  as  a  contractor  in  railroad  construction,  and 
from  1841  to  1846,  I  was  teacher  of  mathematics  and  civil 
engineering  in  Philadelphia. 

Q.  71.  What  do  you  understand  to  be  the  meaning  of 
an  expert  ?     A.  One  who  understands  his  business. 

Q.  72.  Where  did  you  learn  the  Spanish  language  ? 
A.  On  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  and  in  California. 

Q.  73.  Were  you  educated  in  the  Spanish  language, 
and  if  so,  where  and  by  whom  ?  A.  I  do  not  remember 
any  teacher  that  I  have  had.  I  have  stated  where  ;  it  was 
on  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  and  in  California. 

Q.  74.  At  what  school  did  you  attend  in  Panama,  and 
how  long  ?     A.  I  attended  no  school. 

Q.  75.  How  long  were  you  in  Panama,  and  what  did 
you  do  there?  A.  I  think  that  I  arrived  in  Panama  on  the 
23d  of  February,  1849,  and  remained  until  about  the  18th 
of  May,  1849.  I  was,  during  this  time,  awaiting  a  steamer 
to  bring  me  to  California,  and  occupied  the  time  I  was  there 
in  various  ways,  and  in  conversation  with  the  people  and  in 
studying  the  Spanish  language;  I  was  engaged  in  no  regu- 
lar business. 


197 

Q.  76.  How  did  jou  study  the  Spanish  language  there  ? 
A.  I  made  use  of  Ollendorff's  Grammar,  and  another  gram- 
mar, the  author  of  which  I  do  not  remember.  I  boarded 
with  a  Spanish  famil\',  and  had  an  opportunity  of  reading 
1;he  Spanish  newspapers  taken  by  the  gentlema.n  with  whom 
I  boarded. 

Q.  77.  Did  you  ever  attend  a  school  or  receive,  instruc- 
tions from  a  teacher  of  the  Spanish  language  ;  if  so,  when 
;and  where  ?     A.  I  never  did. 

Q.  78.  Do  you  consider  yourself  an  expert  in  surveying  ? 
A.  I  do. 

Q.  79.  Do  you  consider  yourself  an  expert  in  the  teach- 
ing or  interpretation  of  the  Spanish  language  ?  A.  I  do 
not  think  that  I  am.  I  am  able  to  translate  Spanish  docu- 
ments into  English,  but  I  have  not  the  knowledge  or 
familiarity  that" entitles  me  to  be  called  an  expert  in  the 
^Spanish  language. 

Q.  80.  What  do  you  understand  to  be  the  meaning  of 
the  word  "  ran-eheria  V"  A.  '*  Rancheria,"  as  used  in  Cali- 
fornia, signifies  the  location  of  an  Indian  settlement.  I  do 
not  think  that  it  is  applied  to  a  settlement  by  native  Cali- 
fornians,  or  Mexicans,  It  is  the  diminutive  of  rancho — ^a 
hut  or  house,  and,  therefore,  means  a  little  house ;  but  is 
applied  in  California  as  already  of  stated. 

Q.  81.  Did  you  ever  see  such  a  rancheria  ?  A.  I  have 
seen  several,  and  the  remains  of  more. 

Q.  82.  Where  ?  A.  There  were  several  in  the  Sacra- 
mento Valley  ;  at  Ide's  Ranch  ;  at  Colusa  several ;  and  re- 
mains of  these  rancheriasat  the  missions  of  San  Jose,  Santa 
Clara,  San  Carlo,  and  at  other  places. 

Q.  83,  Did  you  ever  see  an  Indian  rancheria,  such  as 
you  have  described,  connected  with  an  Indian  shell  mound, 
and  if  so,  where  ?  A.  I  have  not  dug  into  the  remains  of 
rancherias,  to  ascertain  whether  they  were  composed  in  all 
of  skeletons  and  bones,  or  partly  of  shells  and  partly  of  such 
skeletons  and  bones,  and  am  therefore  unable  to  answer  the 
question,  either  in  the  affirmative  or  the  negative. 

Q.  81.  I  have  not  asked  you  anything  about  skeletons, 
or  bones,  or  of  the  materials  of  which  the  mounds  were  com- 
posed, but  you  said  that  a  rancheria  was  a  collection  of 
Indian  huts,  the  correctness  of  which  I  have  not  questioned, 
and  that  you  had  seen  such  collections  of  huts  ;  and  I  asked 
you,  whether  any  such  collections  were  connected  with  an 
Indian  shell  mound,  and  if  so,  where  ?  A.  The  rancherias, 
or  collection  of  huts,  have  generally  disappeared,  and  the 


19g 

phrase  ^''rancheria^''  is  applied  to  the  mounds  designating 
the  site  of  the  former  buildings  or  villages,  and  it  was  in  re- 
ference particularly  to  these  mounds  and  their  identity  and 
connection  with  Indian  shell  mounds,  that  I  was  unable  to 
state  how  far  they  were  connected,  and  consequently  could 
not  answer  the  question  either  in  the  affirmative  or  negative. 

Q.  85.  You  have  said  that  you  have  seen  collections  of 
huts  or  the  ruins  thereof,  in  various  parts  of  California,  and 
I  also  gather,  from  your  testimony,  that  you  have  seen  Indian 
shell  mounds  in  California,  and  I  have  asked  you  whether 
you  had  ever  seen  them  associated.  Why  is  it" that  you  say 
that  you  cannot  answer  this  question  in  the  affirmative  or 
the  negative  ?  A.  I  think  that  the  shell  mounds  and  ran- 
cherias  are  equivalent  terms,  or  nearly  so. 

Question  85  repeated.    A.    Yes. 

Q.  86,  When  and  where  ?  A.  At  a  ranch eria  just  south 
of  San  Mateo  Creek ;  I  saw  this  in  1863. 

Q.  How  many  Indians,  and  how  many  Indian  huts  were 
there?  A.  There  were  no  Indians  and  no  Indian  huts 
there. 

Q.  87.  What  was  there  in  1863?  A.  There  was  a 
mound  in  the  general  shape  of  the  remains,  or  foundations 
of  a  rancheria,  and  popularly  regarded  as  such  ;  in  the  con- 
struction of  the  San  Francisco  and  San  Jose  Eailroad,  we 
excavated  through  this  mound  and  found  numerous  shells, 
and  human  skeletons  and  bones. 

Q.  88.  What  do  you  mean  by  ''  being  in  the  general 
shape  of  a  rancheria?"  A.  The  rancherias  in  the  Sacra- 
mento Valley  were  generally  nearly  an  exact  square — each 
side  measuring  on  an  average  about  100  yards. 

Q.  89.  Where  did  you  see  a  rancheria  in  the  Sacramento 
Valley?  A.  On  the  Ran  cho  "  Barranco  Colorado  "  (Ide 
confirmee);  at  the  north  end  of  the  Jimeno  Grant,  Colusa 
County ;  at  the  town  of  Colusa ;  near  the  Sacramento  River, 
same  county;  north  of  the  upper  end  of  Sycamour  Slough; 
near  Eddy's  Landing,  on  the  Sacramento  River,  in  same 
county. 

Q.  90.  Were  these  rancherias  inhabited  by  Indians  ?  A. 
These  on  Ide's  Ranch,  at  the  town  of  Colusa,  and  at  Eddy's 
Landing  were  inhabited ;  the  rest  were  not. 

Q.  91.  Were  there  any  Indian  mounds  associated  with 
either  of  these  collections  of  huts  ?  A.  There  were,  and  of 
the  ejeneral  form  already  described. 

Qt  92.  What  were  these  huts  built  of?  A.  Chiefly  of 
willows,  covered  with  mud,  and  having  a  very  narrow  en- 
trance. 


199 

Q.  93.  Why  do  you  say,  in  one  answer,  that  you  have 
not  explored  the  interior  of  these  mounds,  and  in  another 
answer  minutely  describe  the  construction  of  the  Indian 
mound  at  San  Mateo?  A.  At  the  time  I  made  my  first 
answer,  I  did  not  recollect  the  fact  of  the  railroad  having 
cut  through  that  mound. 

Q.  94.  In  your  twenty -six  years'  residence  in  California, 
how  many  of  these  Indian  mounds  have  you  seen  ?  A.  I 
have  seen  the  one  called  Las  Animas,  referred  to  in  this 
testimony,  and  a  large  one  on  the  east  side  of  Coyote  Creek, 
where  there  were  about  75  Indians  in  1850,  which  Coyote 
Creek  is  about  two  miles  to  the  east  of  San  Jose ;  I  have 
seen  these  in  addition  to  those  I  have  already  described,  and 
besides  these  I  have  seen  one  on  the  Bidwell  Rancho,  on 
Chico  Creek — I  believe  that  I  have  named  them  all. 

Q.  95.  Do  you  mean  to  be  understood,  that  wherever 
there  was  a  rancheria  or  Indian  village,  there  was  a  mound"? 
A.  I  do,  except  when  these  villages  were  adjoining  the 
missions,  and  under  the  control  of  the  Fathers. 

Q.  96.  You  have  enumerated  some  half  a  dozen  ;  how 
many  Indians  do  you  think  these  would  accommodate  ?  A. 
I  do  not  know;  I  think  about  1,800. 

Q.  97.  Do  you  not  know,  as  a  matter  of  history,  that 
there  were  many  hundreds  of  thousands  of  Indians  in  the  re- 
gions that  you  have  traversed?  A.  I  do  not  think  that 
there  were  100,000  ;  a  reference  to  Forbes'  history  of  Cali- 
tornia  will  show  you  the  number  of  Indians  belonging  to 
the  missions.  I  have  no  knowledge  of  the  number  of  the 
wild  Indians  of  the  country. 

Q.  98.  Do  you  know  Point  Caballos  ?  A.  I  belive  I 
do,  on  the  map. 

Q.  99.  Do  you  know  the  bay  of  which  it  forms  one  side, 
and  if  so,  what  is  it  ?     A.     I  do ;  it  is  Richardson's  Bay. 

Q.  100.  What  forms  the  other  side  of  that  bay  ?  A. 
The  southern  extremity  of  Point  Tiburon,  between  which 
and  Angel  Island  is  Racoon  Straits. 

Q.  101.  Then  I  understand  you,  that  the  point  of  land, 
which  terminates  at  Racoon  Straits,  is  the  terminus  of  the 
land  which  forms  the  northeast  side  of  Richardson's  Bay  ? 
A.    Yes. 

Q.  102.  And  that  point  is  the  southern  extremity  of 
Point  Tiburon  ?     A.     Yes. 

Q.  103.  Is  not  that  the  Point  of  Tiburon?  A.  The 
Point  of  Tiburon,  or  Shark  Point,  is  the  promontory,  the 
southern  extremity  of  which  is  the  point  designated  in  the 
last  answer. 


200 
Examination  by  J".  B.  Howard. 

Q.  104.  Have  you  examined  the  ground  represented  on; 
the  official  plat,  and  if  so,  when  aiid  in  what  capacity  ?  A. 
I  made  the  survey  of  the  adjoining  Hancho  of  Saucelito,  and 
I  have  a  general  knowledge  of  the  lands  of  this  liancho  of 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio. 

Q.  105.  All  of  it  ?  A.  I  have  never  passed  over  the 
part  known  as  Point  Tiburon,  on  the  south  portion  of  the 
plat,  and  only  know  it  by  having  passed  through  Eacooii 
Straits,  and  around  said  point. 

Q.  106.  At  whose  request  did  you  come  here  as  a  wit- 
ness ?     A.     At  the  request  of  Mr.  Throckmorton. 

Q.  107.  Have  you  had  any  conversation  with  Mr.  Throck- 
morton, as  to  the  matters  about  which  you  have  testiiied  ? 
A.    Yes,  several. 

Q.  108.  At  what  times  and  places  ?  A.  In  San  Fran- 
cisco within  the  past  few  days. 

Q.  109.  Have  you  followed  the  suggestions  of  .Mr. 
Throckmorton,  in  giving  your  testimony  in  this  case?  A. 
No,  not  further  than  I  believed  them  to  be  correct,  and  cor- 
responding with  my  own  judgment. 

Q.  110.  Have  you  not  taken  the  statements  and  sugges- 
tions of  Mr.  Throckmorton  on  matters  connected  with  the 
location  of  this  rancho,  where  your  own  knowledge  was 
more  or  less  defective,  as  being  correct  statements  of  facts 
and  history,  and  upon  which  you  might  rely  in  giving  your 
testimony  ?     A.     I  think  not." 

Question  110  repeated.     A.     No. 

Q.  111.  Did  not  Mr.  Throckmorton  sit  beside  you,  dur- 
ing your  direct  examination,  facilitate  you  in  selecting  maps, 
papers,  documents,  whisper  to  you,  as  to  the  nature  of  cer- 
tain documents,  and  certain  questions,  and  of  the  effect  of 
your  testimony,  in  certain  matters?  A.  Mr.  Throckmor- 
ton did  sit  beside  me,  during  my  direct  examination;  he  did 
facilitate  me  in  selecting  maps,  papers,  and  documents  called 
for ;  he  gave  me  no  information  as  to  the  efiect  of  certain 
documents  ;  as  to  the  nature  of  certain  documents,  which 
were  about  to  be  exhibited,  he  told  me  what  they  were. 

Question  111  objected  by  Mr.  Throckmorton,  as  imperti- 
nent and  improper. 

Q.  112.  Did  Mr.  Brooks  or  any  of  the  other  parties  in 
this  case,  while  you  were  being  examined  by  them,  sit  be- 
side you  and  whisper  to  you  and  otherwise  act  as  you  state 
Mr.  Throckmorton  did  ? 


201 

Objected  to  by  Mr..  Throckmorton,  as  irrelevant  and- im- 
proper, and  by  involving  a  x30uclusioTi  that  has  not  been  tes- 
itified  to. 

A.  Neither  Mr*  Brooks  nor  any  of  the  other  parties, 
while  I  was  being  examined,  sat  beside  me,  and  endeavor 
improperly  by  whispering,  or  otherwise,  to  control  my  tes- 
•timony ;  nor  neither  did  Mr.  Throckmorton,  in  the  direct 
•examination,  by  whispering,  or  otherwise,  attempt  to  control 
oiy  testimony, 

Q.  113.  Examine  your  answer  to  question  111  and  state 
if  it  is  correct  ?     A.     It  is  eorrect. 

Q.  114,  Bid  not  Mr,  Throckmorton  whisper  to  you  dur- 
ing .your  examination  ?  A.  I  could  not  say,  that  he  ever 
spoke  in  a  whisper,  but  during  the  confusion  and  great  noise, 
he  sometimes  spoke  to  me  in  a  low  voice,  so  as  to  allow  pro- 
ceedings to  go  on  with -as  little  interruption  as  possible, 

Q.  115,  Has  not  Mr.  Throckmorton,  on  this  cross-exam- 
ination, suggested  to  you  answers,  to  questions  propounded 
by  Vne,  and  to  modify  your  answers  thereto  ?  A.  He  may 
have  made  one  or  two  suggestions,  but  my  answers  have 
been  made  according  to  my  own  judgment,  not  controlled 
by  dictation  from  anybody. 

Q.  116.  Have  you  ever  made  a  survey  officially  at  the 
Eancho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ?     A.     I  have  not. 

Q.  117,  How  did  you  acquire  your  information  concern- 
ing this  rancho? — from  actual  surveys,  or  from  hearsay? 
A.  I  made,  in  1858,  an  official  survey  for  the  U.  S»  Govern- 
ment, of  the  adjoining  Rancho  of  Saucelito,  and  in  making 
that  survey,  I  had  to  become  particularly  acquainted  with 
the  western  boundary  of  the  Rancho  of  "Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio;"  and  afterwards,  when  Doctor  Mathewson  sur- 
veyed the  same  rancho,  he  exhibited  the  papers  to  me  and 
consulted  with  me  as  a  friend  in  regard  to  the  survey  ;  also, 
in  a  suit  in  the  U.  S.  Circuit  Court,  I  was  called  upon  as  a 
witness,  prior. to  which  I  examined  points  in  the  vicinity  of 
the  Read  house',  and  testiiied  in  regard  to  them  in  the  Cir- 
cuit Court;  the  rest  of  my  evidence  I  believe  is  all  based 
on  maps  and  documents  exhibited,  and  my  general  knowl- 
edge of  the  country  as  set  forth  in  the  preceding  answers. 

Q.  118.  The  case  in  the  Circuit  Court  was  filed  about 
1870,  <' Bolton  vs.  Van  Reynegom  et  als.,"  in  which  Mr. 
Throckmorton  claimed  to  be  a  party  defendant,  as  the  lessor 
of  Philip  Ray  et  al.  Please  state  if  you  were  not  called  by 
Mr.  Throckmorton,  to  testify  in  that  case. 

Objected  by  S.  R.  Throckmorton,  because  it  is  a  case  in 


f02     . 

another  Court,  the  records  of  whicli  are  the  only  testirnoiiy 
that  can  be  used  as  evidence,  and  that  it  is  irrelevant,  irr^ 
material  and  incompetent. 

A.  I  do  not  know  the  title  of  the  case  at  all  ;  but  in  one 
ease,  since  ISTO^and  in  only  one,  have  I  given  any  testimony 
relative  to  this  rancho,  and  in  that  case  I  was  asked  by  Mr. 
Throckmorton  to  appear  as  a  witness. 

Q.  119.  The  testimony  you  gave  in  that  case,  concerned 
the  location  of  the  solar  and  the  western  line  of  the  present 
liancho  of  Corte  Madera,  and  fixes  said  solar  and  western 
line  substantially,  substantially  as  represented  on  the  official 
plat,  and  in  accordance  with  the  testimony  of  said  S.  R. 
Throckmorton  and  George  F.  Allardt,  witnesses  in  said  suit 
in  said  Circuit  Court ;  please  state  now,  whether  said  testi- 
mony was  or  was  not  correctly  reported,  and  by  what 
means  or  from  what  source  of  information  you  have  been 
enabled,  in  this  examination,  to  vary  your  testimony  as  to 
the  location  of  said  solar,  and  the  western  line  of  said  raneho. 

Objected  to  by  S.  R.  Throckmorton,  as  incompetent,  irre- 
levant and  immaterial,  and  because  there  is  no  evidence  ad- 
duced in  this  case  that  S.  R.  Throckmorton  testified  there 
at  all,  or  if  he  did,  the  testimony  is  not  here  produced,  that' 
the  witness  may  tell  what  it  is,  nor  is  there  any  testimony 
here  produced  of  George  F.  Allardt,  or  that  he  testified  in 
that  case,  nor  is  the  evidence  of  Wm.  I.  Lewis  produced 
here,  and  consequently  the  witness  in  this  c*ase,  Wm.  I. 
Lewis,  cannot  testify  whether  his  testimony  in  that  case 
was  correctly  reported  or  not ;  neither  can  be  testify,  for  the 
same  reasons,  whether  or  why  his  testimony  in  this  case 
differs  therefrom,  or  from  any  of  said  testimony,  referred 
to  in  said  question. 

Question  withdrawn. 

WM.  J.  LEWIS. 

Adjourned  till  10  o'clock  Monday  morniqg. 


Monday  morning,  March  20th. 
Met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Hiram  Austin,  examined  in  behalf  of  Mr.  Gardner. 

Q.  1.  What  is  your  name,  age,  occupation  and  place  of 
residence  ?  A.  My  name  is  Hiram  Austin,  50  years  of 
age,  occupation  surveyor  and  civil  engineer,  residence  San 
Rafael,  Marin  County. 


^03 

Q.  2.  The  official  plat  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio  is  shown  to  witness,  and  he  is  asked,  Do  you  know 
the  territory  embraced  within  this  plat,  and  the  circumja- 
<.'ent  country?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  3.  State  how  long  you  have  known  it,  and  how  inti^ 
mately  you  know  it.  A.  I  have  known  it  for  ten  years,  and 
am  familiar,  by  personal  inspection  and  survey,  with  all  the 
land  shown  on  this  plat,  and  that  immediately  adjoining  it 

Q.  4.  The  map  entitled,  "  Gardner's  Map  of  the  Rancho 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  with  its  topography  and  sur- 
roundings, the  Mathewson  survey  lines,  etc.,  by  Hiram 
Austin,  Surveyor,  January  15th,  1876,"  is  shown  witness, 
and  he  is  asked,  Are  you  the  maker  of  this  map  ?  A.  Yes, 
I  am. 

Q.  5.  From  what  sources  did  you  make  this  map,  and 
is  it  a  correct  representation  of  the  country  it  represents  ? 
A.  I  made  the  map  from  surveys,  made  on  the  ground,  by 
myself,  by  the  U.  S.  Deputy  Surveyor,  and  by  order  of  the 
Board  of  Tide  Land  Commissioners,  and  from  personal 
acquaintance  with  the  territory  included  in  the  ranch,  and 
from  topographical  notes  taken^on  the  ground,  and  other  re- 
liable surveys. 

Q.  5.  Is  it  a  correct  representation  ?  A.  It  is  correct  in 
its  main  features. 

Map  offered  in  evidence  as  "Ex.  P.  G.  No.  2." 

Gross- Examined  by  Mr,  Throckmorton, 

Q.  6.  Mr.  Austin,  will  you  please  point  on  this  map, 
"Ex.  P.  G.  ¥0.  2,"  a  stream  called  the  Arroyo  "  Holon  ?" 
A.  The  stream  indicated  on  this  map  as  the  "  Arroyo  de 
los  Esteros,"  is  named  the  Arroyo  Holon  on  Dr.  Mathew- 
son's  map  of  the  Rancho  "Punta  de  San  Quentin." 

Q.  7.  Witness  is  shown  "Ex.  S.  R.  T.  ]^o.  8,"  and  is 
asked  if  he  can  identify  it  approximately  with  a  little  stream 
near  the  word  "Animas,"  on  said  map.  A.  The  stream 
known  as  the  Arroyo  Holon  is  probably  in  the  vicinity  of 
where  the  word  Animas  is  written  on  said  Exhibit. 

Q.  8.  Witness  is  shown  the  official  plat  in  this  case,  and 
is  asked  if  the  stream  marked  thereon  "  Arroyo  Holon  "  is 
the  same  as  the  stream  marked  "  de  los  Esteros,"  on  his 
Gardner  map,  "  Ex.  P.  G.  No.  2."     A.  It  is. 

Q.  9.  Please  look  on  said  map,  Ex.  P.  G.  No.  2,  and  is 
asked  where  the  said  stream  has  its  source. 

A.  It  heads  about  a  mile  and  a  half  northeasterly  from 
the  top  of  Tamalpais  Mountain ;  the  head  of  the  stream  is 
not  shown  on  the  map  P.  G.  No.  2,  referred  to. 


204 

Q.  10.  What  is  its  general  course,  until  it  reaches  the 
vicinity  of  the  post  marked  P.  G.  l^o.  2  ?   A.  Southeasterly. 

Q.  11.  What  is  its  general  course  from  there  to  station 
marked  "  Laurel  P.  A.  99  ?"     A.  It  runs  almost  due  east. 

Q.  12.  What  is  its  general  course  from  said  station  un- 
til it  enters  the  marsh  ?  A.  ^Northeasterly  ;  nearer  north 
than  east. 

Q.  13.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  stream  that  has 
been  referred  to  in  this  examination  as  Arroyo  Holon  ?  A. 
I  am,  and  also  the  valley  through  which  it  runs. 

Q.  14.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  forest  on  that  ar- 
royo  commonly  known  as  the  "  Gorte  Madera  de  San  Pa- 
blo ?"  A.  I  know  all  the  timbered  lands  along  and  in  the 
neighborhood  of  this  stream ;  I  do  not  know  the  local  name 
by  which  each  particular  portion  is  or  may  have  been  known; 
if  the  tract  of  timbered  land  along  that  stream  is  known  by 
that  name,  then  I  do  know  it. 

Q.  15.  Is  there  evidence  of  there  being,  or  having  been, 
a  forest  or  body  of  redwood  timber  along  the  line  of  thi.s 
stream  ?  A.  There  is,  and  there  was  undoubtedly  such  a 
forest. 

Q.  16.  Do  you  know  of  a  marked  and  distinct  ridge  to 
the  south  and  west  of  this  stream;  and  if  so,  in  what  direc- 
tion does  it  run,  and  where  does  it  terminate ;  near  the  Bay 
of  San  Francisco?  A.  I  do  know  of  such  a  ridge  ;  it  is 
shown  on  Exhibit  "P.  G.  ISTo.  2,"  and  marked  as  the  main 
ridge,  running  from  Tamalpais  mountain  easterly  in  the  di- 
rection of  Point  Tiburon,  and  its  eastern  termination  is  at 
Raccoon  Straits  in  the  Bay  of  San  Francisco. 

Q.  17.  Look  on  Ex.  P.  G.  'No.  2  ;  do  you  see  a  charac- 
ter marked  remains  of  "  rancheria  ?"  if  so,  describe  its  loca- 
tion with  relation  to  some  post  or  station.  A.  I  do  see  a 
character  so  marked  ;  it  is  something  less  than  a  quarter  of 
a  mile  east  from  the  station  marked  "Laurel,  C.  M.  P.  77." 

Q.  18.  Do  you  see  a  mark  '*  willows,"  and  an  indication 
of  willows  in  the  neighborhood  thereof  i*     A.  I  do. 

Q.  19.  Do  you  see  the  head  of  a  stream  about  ISTE.  by 
E.  from  peak  marked  ''Tamalpais  "  on  said  map  P.  G.  No. 
2,  near  post  P.  Q.  106  ?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  20.  Witness  is  asked  to  trace  the  course  of  that 
stream  down  to  station  Laurel  C.  M.  P.  post  177,  and  name 
its  general  direction.  A  Its  course  and  location  are  shown 
on  the  map  P.  G.  ISTo.  2  by  a  blue  line,  and  it  runs  generally 
SE. 

Q.  21.     Do  you  find  on  the  map  indication  of  a  creek 


205 

Tnniiing  close  to  and  to  the  west  Qf  a  character  marked  ^'Ue- 
gnains  of  Kancheria,"  on  said  map,  as  heretofore  described 
'by  you,  and  what  is  it  marked?  A.  There  is  a  lin'e  drawn 
in  blue  along  the  location  referred  to  in  the  question,  and 
is  marked  on  said  map,  P.  G.  T^o.  2,  as  <*  Old  Creek." 

Me-direci^  by  Mr.  Gardner, 

Q.  22.  State  whether  the  main  ridge  from  Tamalpais, 
maention^d  in  your  answer  to  question  16,  on  page  566, 
has  any  marked  prominence  at,  or  near,  California  City 
Point?  A.  There  is  a  higher  point  on  the  ridge  there  than 
on  the  portion  of  the  ridge  immediately  adjoining. 

Q.  23.  Is  there  any  marked  depression  dividing  that 
Tidge,  just  south-east  of  that  point? 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Sharp,  as  immaterial  and 
Irrelevant. 

A.  There  is  a  depression  in  the  ridge,  over  which  the 
road  to  tho^  Califoniia  City  track  passes,  as  shown  on  the 
map. 

Q.  24-  Please  state  whether  there  is,  or  ever  has  been, 
any  body  of  timber  or  wood  land  along  the  northerly  slope 
of  the  main  ridge  you  have  spoken  of,  as  tending  in  a  gen- 
«eral  easterly  direction  from  the  redwood  forest  mentioned 
in  answering  Mr,  Throckmorton's  question,  Ko.  15  ?  A.  The 
northerly  slope  of  this  ridge  is,  and  has  been,  more  or  less 
densely  timbered  for  the  distance  of  a  mile  and  a  half  south- 
•easterly  from  the  forest  referred  to  in  the  answer  to  question 
15,  as  shown  on  the  map, 

Q.  25.  Does  this  strip  of  timber  extend  down  to  the 
marsh,  or  fall  short  of  it?  A,  The  forest  is  almost  entirely 
on  the  slope  of  the  ridge, 

Q.  26.  Please  look  at  "  Ex.  S.  E.  T.  Ko.  8,"  and  no- 
ticing the  creeks  laid  down  thereon,  between  Quentin 
and  Tiburon,  state  how  many  creeks  there  are  in  that  space, 
and  what  their  general  course  is,  and  main  deflections  are? 
A.  There  seem  to  be  two  creeks  shown  between  the  points 
marked  Quentin  and  Tiburon  ;  the  one  nearest  to  the  word 
Quentin,  runs  generally  southeasterly;  the  one  nearest  to 
the  word  Tiburon,  has  a  direction  first  northeasterly,  then 
easterl}^  then  almost  south,  into  the  bay. 

Q.  27.  Which  of  these  two  creeks  "is  it  that  is  nearest 
the  boundary  line,  as  marked  in  brown  on  this  Exhibit  S. 
K.  T.  JNTo.  8  ?  A.  The  southerly  one  ;  the  one  nearest  the 
Point  Tiburon. 

Q.  28.     Is  there  any  marked  and  decided  difference  in 


10^ 

^eir  courses,,  as  shown  on  the  mup  ?     A.  My  answer  to* 
question  26  shows  their  courses. 

Q.  29.  Is  there  any  considerable  distance  between  their 
mouths,  according  to  this  Exhibit  "S,  B.  T,  No.  SJ  "  A. 
There  is  about  three-quarters  of  a  Spanish-  league,  as  shown.* 
by  the  scale  on  this  Exhibit. 

Q.  30.  State  by  what  names  the  arroya  shown  on  Ex- 
hibit P.  G-.  Ko.  2y  as  Arroyo  *'  de  los  Usteros,''  and  on  the. 
official  plat  as  Arroya i/oto,, has  been,  or  is« known?  A.  On; 
the  earlier  maps  which  I  have  seen,  this  creek  is  indicated 
as  the  Arroyo  ^'de  los  JEsteros  y  "  on  later  maps,  the  upper- 
part  of  the  creek,  and  perhaps  the  valley  through  which 
it  runs,  is  shown  as  the  ''Holon;''  but  the  maps  of  late 
surveys  show  the  creek  as  the  Arroyo  '^JlolonJ'  I  refer  to- 
the  fresh  water  portion, of  the  creek. 

HIEAM  AXJSTII^. 


Ji,  C.  Hoplm^  recalled  by  Mr,-  Gardner. 

Q.  I.  You  have  stated  that  you  have  been  keeper  of 
the  Spanish  Archives  in  the  office  of  the  XJ.  S.  Surveyor-^ 
General  for  California^  since  1855.  State  whether  the  vol- 
ume now  shown  you  is  a  part  of  those  archives^  and  if  so  what 
it  is?  A.  It  is  a  part  of  the  Spanish  Archives  referred  to,  and 
is  an  ancient  record  book,  in  which,  before  the  system  of 
making  land  grants  in  California  under  the  colonization  law 
of  1824,  was  organized,  were  recorded  descriptions  of 
missions,  grants  of  lands,  lands  belonging  to  Presidios, 
brands  and  marks  of  cattle,  &c.  After  the  organization  of 
the  system  of  making  grants  under  the  laws  of  colonization,, 
the  records  kept  in  this  book  were  discontinued. 

Q.  2-  Look  on  leaf  4  of  said  book,  and  state  what  is- 
thereon  inscribed?  A.  A  description  of  the  lands  of  the 
Mission  of  San  Rafael,  together  with  a  representation  on 
the  margin  of  the  record  of  the  brand  of  said  mission.  I 
have  made  a  translation  of  the  record  referred  to,  which  is 
in  my  hands.  The  record  referred  to  is  offered  as  evidence 
by  certified  copy,  marked  Exhibit  "  P.  Gr.  No.  3 ; "  also  trans- 
lation referred  to  is  offered,  marked  ''P.  G.  No.  4  ;  "  both 
offered  by  Gardner. 

R.  C.  HOPKINS. 

R.  S.  Brown,  witness  called  by  Mr.  Gardner. 
Q.  1.     What  is  your  age  and  where  do  you  reside?     A. 
i  reside  on  Corte  de  Madera,  and  my  age  is  sixty-two  years. 


2G7 

Q.  2.  How  long  have  you  resided  on  Gorte  de  Madera? 
A.  I  have  lived  there  permanently  since  1853. 

Q.  3.  Exhibit  P.  G.  No.  2  is  shown  to  witness,  and  he  is 
asked,  is  the  place  where  you  live  shown  on  this  map,  and 
if  it  is,  will  you  point  it  out  ?  A.  I  live  on  the  tract  be- 
tween the  Arroyo  Estero,  as  marked  on  said  map,  the  line 
of  the  railroad,  and  the  wagon  road. 

Q.  4.  Do  you  know  a  high  ridge  running  from  Tamal- 
pais  mountian,  towards  California  City  Point?     A.  Yes. 

Q.  5.  State  whether  or  not  that  ridge  does,  or  does  not, 
slope  towards  your  place  of  residence?  A.  It  slopes  to- 
wards my  place  of  residence. 

Q.  6.  State  whether  or  not  that  slope  of  the  ridge  was, 
when  you  first  saw  it,  wooded.  A.  A  perfect  forest  of  red- 
wood. 

Q.  7.  How  far  did  that  forest  of  redwood  extend 
towards  the  east,  along  that  slope  ?  A.  Three  miles,  more 
or  less  ;  I  think  more  than  three  miles. 

Q.  8.  Did  that  forest  extend  down  to  the  marsh  ?  A. 
Very  near. 

Q.  9.  State  whether  or  no  there  was  any  farming  land 
between  that  timber  and  the  marsh.  A.  I  should  think 
there  was  eight  or  nine  hundred  acres. 

Q.  10.  Where  was  the  Arroyo  Holon  in  1852,  when  you 
first  knew  it  ?  A.  This  same  arroyo,  as  you  call  it,  was  in 
the  same  place  as  now,  but  I  never  heard  it  called  the 
Holon.  R.  S.  BROWK 

Peter  Gardner  re-called,  this  time  on  behalf  of  himself, 
being  sworn,  says  : 

Q.  1.  State  whether  you  ever  lived  within  the  limits  of  the 
land  shown  on  the  oflicial  plat  of  the  Corte  Madera  del  Pre- 
sidio liancho  (plat  here  shown  witness);  and  if  so,  point 
out  the  spot  on  said  plat.  A.  I  have ;  my  house  was  situ- 
ated near  Station  596  on  this  map. 

Q.  2.  Examine  Exhibit  P.  G.  l^o,  2,  and  point  out,  if 
you  can,  the  location  of  your  house.  A;  It  is  marked  on 
the  map,  "Peter  Gardner." 

Q.  3.  What  was  the  nature  of  your  possession,  and  how 
much  land  had  you  at  that  place,  and  how  was  it  situated  ? 
A.  I  located  there  in  1859,  intending  to  pre-empt,  and  took 
150  to  160  acres,  as  near  160  acres  as  I  could  get ;  built  a 
house,  and  lived  there  till  about  1872,  when  I  was  ejected 
in  the  action  of  Bolton  vs.  Van  Eeynegom,  in  the  U.  S. 
Circuit  Court,  which  is  now  pending  on  appeal  to  the  Su- 


208 

prerae  Court  of  the  United  States  at  Washington.  I  have 
also  patents  of  the  State  of  California  for  adjacent  marsh 
land.  PETER  GARDIS^ER. 

R.  C.  Hopkins  re-called  by  Mr.  Throckmorton,  on  cross- 
examination. 

Q.  1.  In  the  former  part  of  your  testimony,  you  testified 
as  to  the  mode  of  makino^  iuridical  measurements  of  Mexi- 
can  land  grants  ;  please  state  whether  that  was  or  was  not  a 
part  of  the  act  of  juridical  possession,  for  the  purpose  of 
ascertaining  the  quantity  of  land  granted,  and  of  which 
possession  was  given.     A.  I  have  so  stated. 

Q.  2.  Was  that  process  of  measurement  a. separate  and 
distinct  part  of  the  act  of  giving  juridical  possession,  and 
necessary  thereto  ?     A.  It  was. 

Q.  3.  How  were  those  measurements  generally  made, 
with  reference  to  the  lands  to  be  measured  ?  A.  Some- 
times all  of  the  exterior  boundaries  vTere  measured  ;  some- 
times two  or  three  of  the  exterior  boundaries  were  measured, 
and  the  length  of  those  that  were  not  measured  were  esti- 
mated;  and  sometimes  but  two  lines  were  measured,  one 
for  the  length  of  the  tract  and  one  for  the  width,  in  which 
case,  often,  the  exterior  boundaries  were  not  run  or  meas- 
ured. 

Q.  4.  Do  I  understand  you  to  state  by  ihU  answer,  that 
frequently  lines  of  measurement  of  Mexican  land  grants,  in 
giving  juridical  possession  thereof,  do  not  necessarily  indi- 
cate or  establish  lines  of  boundaries  ?  A.  Often  they  do  not; 
for  sometimes  a  line  was  measured  through  the  centre  of 
the  rancho,  for  the  length,  and  one  for  the  width  for  the 
same  purpose  ;  and  from  the  lines  so  measured,  an  estimate 
was  made  of  the  quantity. 

Q.  5.  Look  at  offered  map  of  survey  of  rancho  of  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio,  and  measure  from  Post  C.  M.  P.  181,  to 
Redwood  Post  P.  Q.  99,  W.  R.  203,  on  the  Arroyo  Holon, 
and  please  state  the  distance  between  those  points  in  cor- 
deles.     A..  About  seventy-three  cordeles. 

Q.  6.  Please  measure  from  said  last  named  station,  south- 
erly 200  cordeles,  to  the  westerly  side  of  Tiburon,  and  note 
the  termination  of  that  measurement.  A.  The  measure- 
ment of  200  cordeles  from  the  point  referred  to  terminates 
on  said  map  at  point  marked  "  Granite  monument,  on  base 
line,  between  stations  296  and  298." 

Q.  7.  Measure  from  said  redwood  *'  Post  P.  Q.  99,  W. 
R.  203/'  southerly  to  the  east  side  of  Tiburon,  and  note  the 


209 

f)oint  to  whicli  tlie  measurement  of  200  cordeles  reaches. 
A.  It  would  reach  to  the  station  marked  *' 434  "  on  the 
■official  map. 

Q.  8.  Would  either  of  th^se  lines  which  you  have  traced 
on  said  map,  necessaTily  and  could  all  of  them  by  any  pos- 
sibility be  considered  lines  of  boundary  ?     A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  9.  Reading  from  page  12,  "Ex.  S.  E.  T.  No.  9,"  as 
follows :  "  They  commenced  said  measurements,  and,  going 
from  south  to  north,  they  measured  to  an  arroyo  called  the 
Holon,  etc.;"  and  again,  quoting  from  said  record  of  juridi- 
•cal  measurement,  on  same  page :  "  From  this  point,  taking 
^  direction  from  north  to  south,  the  measurement  was  con- 
tinued to  Point  Tiburon ;  they  measured  200  cordeles; 
w^ould  that  or  either  of  those  lines  be  necessarily  a  bound- 
ary of  said  rancho  ?  A.  By  the  customs  observed  in  making 
juridicnl  measurements  of  Spanish  and  Mexican  land  grants, 
it  would  not  necessarily  be  ari  exterior  boundary, 

Q.  7.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  papers  of  juridical 
possession  in  this  ease — enough  so  to  answer  in  relation 
thereto  without  having  the  same  read  to  you  ?  A.  I  think 
i  am. 

Q.  8.  Referring  you  to  that  part  of  the  description  of 
juridical  boundary  commencing  with  the  words,  (on  page 
13),  '*In  conformitj'  they  led  the  way  to  the  west,  &c."  Are 
you  sufficiently  acquainted  with  said  record  of  juridical  pos- 
session to  state  whether  that  juridical  boundary  would  place 
the  western  boundary  of  the  Rancho  of  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio  on  the  land  marked  as  the  western  boundary  of  the 
official  survey  ?  A.  The  call  of  this  boundary  is  a  ^'  Canada 
where  there  is  a  forest  of  tall  redwood  trees,  which  the}^ 
call  redwoods,  in  the  Canada  itself,  and  some  little  vail ej^s 
which  form  the  base  of  a  high  peak,  called  Palmas,  etc." 
This  description  is  given  by  the  witnesses  who  were  giving 
their  testimony  as  to  the  location  and  boundaries  of  the 
Raucho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio.  It  is  too  vague 
and  too  general  for  me  to  be  able  to  fix,  upon  the  map  of 
the  survey,  the  boundary  intended  to  be  described  ;  nor  am 
I  able  to  designate  on  the  official  map,  the  exact  boundary 
sought  to  be  described  by  said  witnesses. 

Q.  10.  Does  the  above  testimony  appear  to  you  suffi- 
ciently clear  to  positively  ^x  that  western  line,  as  laid  down 
upon  the  official  map  ?  A.  I  think  that  as  descriptive  of  an 
exact  call  for  the  commencement  of  a  line  or  boundary,  it 
does  not. 

Adjourned  by  order  of  Surveyor-General,  till  Friday,  24th. 


2T0' 

Friday,  2ith^ 

Met  pursnant  to  adjonrnment. 

Examination  of  Hopkins  continued. 

Q.  11 — {By  Mr.  Throcknaorton).  Are  you  acquaintet? 
with  Mr.  William  J.  I^wis,  a  witness  in  this  case^  and  if 
so,  do  you  know  of  him  as  a  surveyor  and  civil  engineer,, 
and  if  so,  what  is  his  general  reputation  and  value  in  thi» 
country  a&  an  expert  in  the-  location  and  surveying  of 
Mexican'  land  grants  in  California,  and  the  interpretation 
and  application  of  the  descriptions  in  Mexican  title  papered 
to  surveys?  A.  I  have  known  Mr.  William  J.  Lewiti 
intimately  for  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century ;  have  known* 
him,  socially  and  professionally,  as  a  surveyor  and  civil 
engineer,  and  I  also  am  familiar  with  the  reputation  that  he 
lias  borne  in  California,  professionally,  for  the-  last  twenty- 
five  years,  and  can  say  that  I  have  ever  looked  upon  Mr. 
Lewis  as  one  of  the  most  able  and  skillful  mathematicians 
and  civil  engineers  on  this  coast,  and  as  being  eminently 
qualified,  in  consideration  of  the  character  of  the  knowledge 
he  possesses,  for  making  locations  and  surveys  of  lands^ 
described  in  Spanish  and  Mexican  grants.  And  I  can 
further  say,  that  this  is  the  reputation  that  Mr.  Lewis  has 
borne  in  California  for  the  last  twenty-five  years,  and  during 
which  time  I  think  he  has  been  generally  employed  in  the 
difl"erent  branches  of  his  profession ;  and  I  know  also  that 
he  has  often  been  called  as  an  expert  in  matters  pertaining 
to  his  profession. 

Wm.  J.  Lewis  Be- Called  by  Mr.  Throckmorton. 

Q.  1.  Witness  is  shown  ofiicial  map,  '^  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio,"  and  is  asked:  Please  notice  the  line  laid  down  on 
that  map  as  the  western  boundary  line,  and  state  if  you 
recognize  in  that  line  a  trial  line  run  by  I>octor  Mathewson 
when  he  surveyed  said  rancho,  and  whether  he  had  with 
you  any  conversations  or  consultation  at  the  time  in  refer- 
ence to  said  trial  line. 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Sharp,  as  irrelevant,  immaterial  and 
incompetent. 

A.  I  do  not  know  the  object  of  running  this  line,  as  shown 
on  the  map  referred  to ;  said  line  is  laid  down  as  the  western 
boundary  on  said  map  ;  but  I  think  it  must  have  been  run 
as  a  trial  line  ;  the  consultation  that  I  had  with  Doctor 
Mathewson  was  in  regard  to  the  exterior  western  boundary 
of  the  Rancho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  in  which  we 
agreed  that  Arroyo  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  was  the 
western  boundary.  ^ 


211 

Q.  2.  When  you  say  the  Arroyo  "  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio,"  please  look  at  "  Ex,  S.  E,  T.  Fo.  6,"  and  describe 
the  source  and  course  of  the  same,  as  laid  down  on  said 
Exhibit. 

Same  objection  by  Sharp. 

A.  The  source  of  said  Arroyo  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio 
is  a  little  to  the  west  of  the  most  northern  point  of  the 
Saucelito  Ranclio,  as  shown  on  Exhibit  'Ho.  6,  a  portion  of 
the  northwestern  boundary  of  said  Saucelito  Rancho,  cross- 
ing Mount  Tamalpais,  is  shown  on  said  Exhibit;  the  course 
of  said  Arroyo  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  from  said  northern 
point  to  its  mouth,  is  shown  on  Exhibit  S.  R.  T.  ISTo.  6,  and 
from  the  eastern  boundary  of  the  Saucelito  Rancho,  and  the 
exterior  western  boundary  of  the  Rancho  del  Presidio,  as 
far  as  the  latter  rancho  extends  northerly  ;  or  from  the  let- 
ter ^'B  "  to  the  mouth  of  the  Arroyo  of  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio,  as  said  letter  "B''  is  marked  on  said  Exhibit 
^'  S.  R.  T.  J^To.  6.'^ 

Q.  3.  Was  that  western  boundary  of  the  Rancho  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio,  as  described  by  you  in  your  last  an- 
swer, the  conclusion  arrived  at  by  Doctor  Mathewson  and 
yourself  from  the  conversations  and  consultations  which 
you  had  together  :     A.  It  was. 

William  J.  Lewis  Cross- Examined  by  Mr.  Howard. 

Q.  1.  Do  you  know,  of  your  own  knowledge,  the  loca- 
tion on  the  official  plat  of  the  westerly  line  of  said  rancho, 
as  originally  run  by  Deputy  Surveyor  R.  C.  Mathewson  in 
1858  ?  A.  I  see  the  line  indicated  on  the  official  map,  but 
I  have  never  been  over  that  ground,  from  post  C.  M.  P.  181  to 
redwood  post  P.  Q.  99  and  W.  R.  203,  at  the  Arroyo  Holon. 

Q.  2.  How  then  do  you  know  that  said  line  represents 
the  westerly  line  of  said  rancho,  as  run  by  said  Deputy  R. 
C.  Mathewson  in  1858  ?  A.  I  do  not  think  it  does  ;  on  the 
contrary,  I  have  stated  that  that  was  a  trial  line;  it  is  not 
the  line  indicated  in  the  official  plat  and  return  of  Dr.  R.  C. 
Mathewson  in  1858  ;  but  it  is  marked  as  western  boundary, 
and  described  in  the  field  notes  of  the  survey  of  said  ran- 
cho by  Leander  Ransom,  Deputy  Surveyor,  in  September 
and  October,  18T3,  and  G.  F.  AUardt,  Deputy  Surveyor,  in 
June,  1874 ;  both  maps  referred  to  being  official  maps,  filed 
in  this  office. 

Q.  3.  Does  not  the  westerly  line  of  said  rancho,  from 
post  "  C.  M.  180  "  to  post  "  C.  M.  181,"  on  both  maps,  viz  ; 


212 

the  Mafchewson  of  1858,  and  the  Ransom- Allardt  of  1873-4, 
exactly  correspond  ?     A.  The  points  are  nearly  identical 

Q.  4.  Do  you  not  know  that  the  westerly  line  of  said 
rancho,  as  on  the  official  Allardt-Ransom  plat  of  1873-4^ 
from  post  "  C.  M.  P.  181 ''  to  post  P.  Q.  99,  W.  R.  203,  corres- 
pond exactly  with  the  westerly  line  of  said  rancho  as  run 
by  Deputy  K.  C.  Mathewson  in  1858 ;  and  that  the  change 
or  diflerence  in  location  of  said  w^esterly  line  on  said  Ma- 
thewson plat  arose  from  the  fact  that  the  claimants,  being 
directed  to  select  one  square  league  and  no  more,  within  the 
said  exterior  boundaries  of  said  rancho,  and  accordingly  that 
the  Surveyor-General,  in  1858,  directed  Deputy  Mathewson 
to  modify  his  said  survey  on  the  westerly  end  of  said  rancho^ 
so  as  to  conform  to  government  subdivisions  ?  A.  I  do  not 
know  that  the  line  marked  as  the  westerly  boundary,  from 
post  C.  M.  P.  181  to  redwood  post  P.  Q.  99,  and  W.  R.  203, 
was  the  line  surveyed  by  Dr.  Mathewson,  nor  do  I  know 
what  instructions  he  received  from  the  Surveyor-General, 
or  from  any  source,  in  regard  to  the  survey  of  the  northerly 
boundary  according  to  section  lines;  but  the  official  plat  of 
Dr.  Mathewson  shows  that  the  northern  line  followed  the 
legal  subdivisions  of  public  lands,  runniiifi^  by  several  courses, 
east  and  north  from  0.  M.  P.  181  to  0.  M.  P.  1. 

Q.  5.  Do  you  know  what  is  represented  by  the  letters 
and  figures,  *' W.  R.  203?"  A.  I  do  not,  but  that  can  be 
easily  ascertained  by  referring  to  the  field  notes  where  it  is 
explained  in  detail. 

Q.  6.  Do  you  not  know  that  said  letters  and  figures  rep- 
resent "  Widow  Read,  post  203,"  and  that  said  post  was 
ascertained  and  fixed  by  Deputy  Mathewson  in  1858,  as  the 
termination  of  the  westerly  line  of  the  Read  Rancho,  or 
Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  from  post "  C.  M.  P.  181 
to  the  intersection  of  the  Rancho  Punta  de  Quentin,  and 
there  represented  by  the  letters  and  figures,  redwood  post 
"P.  Q.  99'r"  A.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  it;  the  fine 
from  post  C.  M.  181  to  redwood  post  P.  Q.  99  and  W.  R. 
203  is  on  the  map  of  Ransom  and  Allardt,  and  is  not  on  the 
map  of  Dr.  Mathewson. 

Q.  7.  Do  you  not  know  that  said  posts  were  fixed,  and 
said  line  was  surveyed  by  said  Deputy  Mathewson  in  1858? 
A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  8.  Do  you  know,  of  your  own  knowledge,  anything 
definite  and  specific  concerning  the  survey  of  said  Mathew- 
son in  1858,  of  the  v^esterly  boundary  of  said  rancho,  other 
than  what  you  have  lately  ascertained  from  parties  inter- 


21B 

<e^ed  and  from  an  examination  of  tbe  records?  A.  1  laa've 
^testified  already  that  I  made  the  survey  of  the  Saucelito 
Jliancho  in  1858,  the  eastern  boundary  of  which  is  the  exte- 
rior western  boundary  of  the  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio 
[Hancho,  and  have  been  acquainted  for  the  last  eighteen 
years  with  the  said  division  line  and  with  several  local 
points  in  the  vicinity.  In  1871  I  was  at  post  "  C.  M.  181," 
iiit  I  know  nothing  of  the  lines  running  northerly  from  that 
point,  except  what  I  derive  from  th<3  two  official  maps. 

Q.  9,  Mr,  Howard  now  shows  witness  certified  copy  of 
^complaint,  amendment,  and  stipulation  in  the  case  in  the  U. 
•S.  Circuit  Court,  entitled  as  follows: 

In  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  for  the  District  of  Cal- 
ifornia. 

■James  Clii^on  Bolton,  Plaintiff, 

vs. 


John  L.  Fan  Reynegom,  Mary  King,  Philip 
Bay,  Francisco  Angenett,  aiid  others,  De- 
.  fendants. 


^     Na  190. 


Filed  originally  in  1865,  and  the  amendment  and  stipula- 
tion filed  in  1871,  and  also  certified  transcript  ot*  testimony 
of  one  William  J.  Lewis,  sworii  in  said  case  in  behalf  of 
said  defendant,  Philip  Ray,  but  not  of  the  other  defendants, 
including  direct  and  cross-examination,  and  asks  witness:  If 
he  testified  in  said  cause,  and  if  he  is  the  same  William  J. 
Lewis  mentioned  in  said  transcript  of  evidence?  A.  I  am 
the  William  J.  Lewis  who  testified  in  that  case. 

WM.  J.  LEWIS. 


John  B,  Howard  now  offers  as  Exhibits  duly  certified 
copy  of  a  complaint  of  James  Clinton  Bolton,  plaintiff, 
representing  all  the  owners  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera 
del  Presidio,  against  John  L.  Van  Reynegom,  Mary  King, 
Philip  Ray  and  others,  defendants,  bemg  suit  No.  190  of 
the  docket  of  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  for  the  Dis- 
trict of  California,  filed  February  6th,  1871  (the  original  first 
filed  in  1865,  and  the  present  complaint  being  an  amendment 
thereto  and  substitution  therefor),  with  an  amendment 
and  stipulation  filed  February  11th,  1871,  too;ether  with 
the  answer  thereto  of  said  defendant,  Mary  King,   whose 


2T^ 

^t\xe  name  is  Mary  J.  King.  Also  the- testimony  of  Samuel 
R.  Throckmorton,  George  F.  Allardt,  and  William  J.  Lewis,, 
together  with  stipulations  and  agreements  by  and  between? 
the  said  Throckmorton  (claiming  to  be  a  defen dent  therein)' 
and  others  of  said  defendants,  and  the-  said  plaintift'  repre- 
senting all  the  then  clainmnts  ta  the  Rancho  Cbrte  Madera 
del  Presidio,  and  said  complaints  and  stipidatione,  limiting^ 
fixing,  and  e&tabiishing  by  agreement  the  westerly  bound- 
ary line  of  the  said  rancha  as  laid  down  on  the- official  plat 
of  survey  known  as  the  Ransonj-Allardt  survey  of  1873-4. 
Also,  the  final  judgment  of  said  Circuit  Court  m  said  causes 
— final  as  to  said  Mary  J.  King  and  as  ta  her  rights  of  own- 
ership and  possession  of  the  lands  by  her  then  occupied,  and 
originally  claimed  in  said  proceeding  by  said  Bolton,  beiug- 
tbe  same  lands  now  occupied  and  claimed  by  Frances  D^ 
Barlow  and  John  J.  Cushing,  and  of  all  the  lands  lying- west 
of  and  immediately  adjacent  to  the  westerly  boundary  line 
of  said  ranclio  ;  and  alsa,  the  title  of  the  CTnited  States 
thereto  by  reaso-n  of  the  abandonment  of  the  same  by  the 
claimants  of  said  rancho,  to  wit :  all  the  lands  marked 
"  Public  Land'  west  of  said  rancho,  as  on  said  official  plat. 

Said  documents,  duly  certified  by  the  Clerk  of  said  Cir- 
cuit Court,  are  herewith  offered  as  Exhibits,  together  with 
endorsements,  date  of  filing  aixl  certificate  of  correctness,, 
and  are  designated  as  "•  Circuit  Court  Exhibits,"  Number* 
1  to  10  inclusive,  as  follows,  viz  : 

Exhibit  J^o.  1,  J,  A,  R — Complaint  a&  amended,  with 
stipulation,  etc* 

Exhibit  No.  2,  J,  A,  R> — Answer  of  Mary  King. 

Exhibit  No,  3,  J.  A.  R.— Testimony  of  S,  R.  Throck- 
morton. 

Exhibit  No.  4,  J.  A.  R.— Testimony  of  George  F.  Al- 
lardt. 

Exhibit  No.  5,  J.  A.  R. — Testimony  of  William  J,  Lewis. 

Exhibit  No.  6,  J.  A.  R. — Judgment  of  the  Court  in  said 
cause. 

Exhibit  No,  7,  J.  A.  R.— Stipulation. 

Exhibit  No.  8,  J.  A.  R. — Stipulation. 

Exhibit  No.  9,  J.  A.  R. — Afiidavit  of  James  M.  Seawell. 

Exhibit  No.  10,  J.  A.  R.— Affidavit  of  S.  R.  Throck- 
inorton. 

S.  R.  Throckmorton  objects  to  so  much  of  this  record  as 
what  purports  to  be  a  part  of  this  record,  commencing  at 
page  591,  and  continuing  592  and  593,  up  to  this  entry,  be- 
cause the  same  were  interpolated  and  formed  no  part  of  this 


2i^ 

record,  having  been  inserted  during  recess,  and  the  manner 
and  mode  thereof  having  been  ruled  against  by  the  Sur- 
veyor-General ;  and  the  said  Throckmorton  asks  to  have 
the  same  expunged,  because  they  are  void,  and  improperly 
placed  here.  The  said  S.  R.  Throckmorton  having  objected 
to  the  mode  and  manner  of  offering  Exhibits,  and  having 
appealed  to  the  .Surveyor-General,  the  Surveyor-General 
sustained  his  objection,  and  ordered  the  offering  to  be  made 
of  each  paper  separately. 

J.  B.  Howard  requests  that  it  be  entered  of  record  that 
the  above  objection  be  simply  that  of  S.  K.  Throckmorton, 
stating  his  opinion  on  the  subject. 

J.  B.  Howard  now  re-offers  said  Exhibits  from  "1,"  to 
**  10  "  separately  as  follows : 

Exhibit  N"o.  1. — Complaint,  amendment,  stipulation,  etc. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  object  to  said  Exhibit  on  the  ground: 
1st.  That  it  is  incompetent  for  the  purposes  of  establishing 
the  exterior  boundaries  of  this  ranch,  in  conformity  to  the 
decree  of  the  United  States  District  Court  and  the  record 
of  juridical  possession  thereof,  and  it  is  in  no  wise  binding 
upon  the  United  States  Surveyor-General  in  making  a  final 
survey  thereof 
'     S.  E.  Throckmorton  makes  the  same  objection. 

Peter  Gardner  objects  to  the  above  Exhibit  and  reserves 
grounds  of  objection  for  future  statement  within  three  days, 
from  March  24th,  1876,  on  the  grounds  that  the  Court  did 
not  have  jurisdiction  other  than  to  ascertain  the  boundaries 
segregated  by  this  Department. 

Also,  Exhibit  No.  2. — Answer  of  Mary  J.  King,  defendant, 

Mullen  &  Hyde  object,  and  for  the  reason  stated  in  objec- 
tion to  Exhibit  No.  1. 

S.  R.  Throckmorton  makes  the  same  objection. 

Peter  Gardner  objects,  and  will  file  grounds  within  three 
days. — Same  objection. 

Also,  Exhibit  No.  3. — Testimony  of  S.  R.  Throckmorton 
in  said  suit. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  object,  and  for  the  reason  stated  in  objec- 
tion to  Exhibit  No.  1. 

S.  R.  Throckmorton  makes  the  same  objection. 

Peter  Gardner  objects,  and  will  file  grounds  within  three 
days,  as  incompetent,  immaterial  and  irrelevant. 

Also,  Exhibit  No.  4.  Testimony  of  Geo.  F.  Allardt  in 
said  suit. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  object,  and  for  the  reason  stated  in  objec- 
tion to  Exhibit  No.  1. 


216 

S.  R.  Throckmorton  makes  the  same  objection. 

Peter  Gardner  objects,  and  will  file  grounds  within  three 
days. — Same  objection. 

Secondl3^  Mullen  &  Hyde  further  objects,  because  said 
Geo.  F.  Allardt  has  already  testified  in  this  case,  and  said 
Exhibit  i^o.  4  has  not  been  shown  the  same,  and  thus  afforded 
an  opportunity  either  to  explain  any  matters  therein  con- 
tained, provided  there  exists  any  conflict  between  the  con- 
tents of  said  Exhibit  No.  4  and  the  testimony  of  said  Allardt 
as  heretofore  given  in  this  case. 

Secondly.  S.  R.  Throckmorton  makes  the  same  objections 
and  for  the  same  reasons,  as  the  foregoing  Secondly  of  Mul- 
len &  Hyde. 

Also,  Exhibit  No.  5 — testimony  of  William  J.  Lewis  in 
said  suit. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  object,  and  for  the  reason  that  said  Lewi* 
has  not  been  shown  said  Exhibit  for  the  purpose  of  explain- 
ing any  matters  therein  contained,  that  might  or  would 
seem  or  appear  to  differ  from  the  testimony  heretofore  given 
by  said  Lewis  in  this  case. 

S.  li.  Throckmorton  makes  the  same  objection. 

Peter  Gardner  objects — same  objection. 

Also,  Exhibit  No.  6— judgment  of  said  Circuit  Court  in 
said  suit. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  object,  and  for  the  reason  stated  in  objec- 
tion to  Exhibit  No.  1. 

Sc  R.  Throckmorton  makes  the  same  objection  as  Mullen 
&  Hyde,  and  further  that  it  is,  on  its  face,  a  judgment  for 
but  a  part  of  the  rancho. 

Peter  Gardner  objects  because  the  court  has  no  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  exterior  boundaries,  as  has  been  decided  in  this 
case  by  the  General  Land  Oflice ;  and  that  said  action  was 
appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and  is 
now  pending  there  and  is  not  yet  decided. 

Also,  Exhibit  No.  1 — stipulation  filed  in  said  cause. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  object  to  said  Exhibit  as  immaterial  and 
incompetent. 

S.  R.  Throckmorton  objects  for  the  same  reason  as  Mullen 
&  Hyde,  and  also  for  the  reason  that  it  does  not  affect  the 
boundaries  of  said  rancho  on  final  survey  of  the  same. 

Peter  Gardner  objects  as  incompetent  and  immaterial. 

Also,  Exhibit  No.  8 — stipulation  filed  in  said  cause. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  object  to  said  Exhibit  as  immaterial  and 
incompetent,  and  that  it  does  not  affect  the  boundaries  of 
said  rancho  on  final  survev  of  the  same. 


217 

S.  R.  ThroclcmoTton  objects  for  the  same  reasons  as  MaV 
9en  &  Hyde. 

Peter  Gardner  objects  to  question  as  immaterial,  irrele- 
vant  and  incompetent;  besides  it  was  a  fraud  on  all  the  de- 
fendants, except  S.  R.  Throckmorton,  because  it  was  done 
without  th^  consent  or  knowledge,  and  against  the  wishes 
of  the  defendants  and  their  counsel,  J.  McM.  Shafter.     • 

Also,  Exhibit  JSTo.  9 — Affidavit  of  James  M.  Seawell,  in 
:said  cause,  tiled. 

MuHen  ^  Hyde   makes   same   objections  as   to   Ex.    H. 

S.  R.  Throckmorton  makes  same  objection. 

Peter  Gardner  objects  to  question  as  incompetent,  imma- 
terial and  iiTelevant,  and  on  the  ground  that  it  attempts  to 
.amend  his  own  wrong. 

Also,  Ex.  ]S^o.  10— Affidavit  of  S.  R.  Throxjkmorton  in 
rsaid  suit. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  objects  to  Ex.  ]^o.  10,  as  irrelevant  and 
incom[')etent. 

S.  R.  Throckmorton  objects  to  same,  as  irrelevant,  in- 
•competent,  and  because  it  does  not  affect  the  boundaries  of 
the  said  rancho,  on  a  final  survey,  when  same  shall  be  made 
«nder  the  order  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  promul- 
gated January  6th,  1872,  ordering  a  survey  of  said  rancho 
to  be  made  in  accordance  with  the  act  of  juridical  posses- 
sion of  said  rancho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ;  and 
further,  for  the  reason  that  the  said  affidavit,  when  made, 
was  intended  to  refer  only  to  so  much  of  the  said  survey 
therein  referred  to  as  marched  with  the  eastern  boundary 
hue  of  the  rancho  of  Saucelito ;  and  was  intended  to  be,  as 
was  all  the  testimony  offered  in  that  case  by  said  Throck- 
morton, simply  a  defense  and  a  bar  against  any  other  sur- 
vey of  said  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  impinging 
upon  or  overlapping  any  part  of  the  lands  of  the  said  ran- 
cho of  Saucelito. 

Peter  Gardner  objects. 

J.  B.  Howard  now  offers  certified  copy  of  deed,  bom  said 
defendant,  Mary  King,  whose  true  name  is  "  Mary  J.  King," 
to  Francis  D.  Barlow,  dated  October  28th,  1873,  for  the 
lands  claimed  of  said  King  by  said  Bolton. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  objects  to  deed  as  incompetent  and  im- 
material. 

S.  R.  Throckmorton  makes  same  objection,  and  because 
it  does  not  affect  the  final  survey  of  this  rancho. 


2^8" 

K  S.  Brooks,  Esq.,  called  for  Frances  jy\  Karlow,  et  at^  hy 
I.  B.  Howard,  and  duly  sworn,  deposes  and  says : 

My  name  is  Benj.  &  Brooks ;  I  reside  in  San  Francisco  ; 
my  age  i» fifty  years  andf  upwards;  occupation,  attorney  an(l 
counsellor  at  law. 

Q.  1.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  Kancho  of  Cbrte- 
Madera  del  Presidio,  in  Marin  ComrtVy  and  if  so,  for  how 
Tong^  a  time  have  you  been  acquainted  with  the  same  ?  A. 
I  am  acquainted  with  the  said  ranch  ;  I  have  been  acquainted 
with  it,  more  or  less,  ever  since  I  have  been  here^  but  more 
particularlv  for  the  last  eleven  years. 

Q.  2.  Have  you  known  tbe  state  of  the  title  under  the- 
confirmees  to  said  rancho  since  1864  ;  the  depositions  sub- 
sequently niade,-  and  present  ownership  thereof,  and  if  so, 
state.  A.  During  that  time,  I  have  acted  as  the  counsel  of 
the  Read  heirs,  of  Rudolf  and  Emil  Steinbach,  and  Emil 
Grisar,  James  C.  Bdton  and  Thomas  B.  Valentine.  Much 
I  have  done ;  much  I  have  directed,  and  much  that  was 
done  by  others  I  have  known  at  tbe  time;  still  there  may 
be  some  things  done  that  I  have  not  known. 

Q.  3.  State,  if  you  know,  what  interest  in  said  raucho 
the  said  James  C.  Bolton  had  when  he  acquired  it,  and  what 
measures,  if  any,  be  took  during  the  time  he  held  title 
thereto,  with  reference  to  his  interest  therein. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  object :  1st.  Because  it  is  not  the  best  ev- 
idence ;  and  2d,  because  it  is  incompetent  for  the  purpose 
of  this  investigation,  which  is,  simply  to  ascertain  whether 
the  Ransom  survey  conforms  to  the  record  of  the  juridical 
possession  of  this  rancho,  as  deduced  from  the  Mexican  ar- 
chives. 

A.  He  was  interested  as  a  tenant  in  common  with  the 
Read  heirs,  in  that  portion  of  the  rancho  not  included  within 
the  Mathewson  survey  ;  the  date  at  which  he  acquired  his 
interest  will  appear  from  the  deed,  which  is  August  12th, 
1865 — his  deed  calHng  for  i  interest.  Mr.  Bolton  was  a 
lawyer  of  New  York  ;  he  came  here  as  the  counsel  of  Jno. 
C.  Fremont,  with  letters  to  myself;  while  here  he  became 
acquainted  with  the  Read  heirs,  and  then  or  before  with 
Steinbach  ;  they  entered  into  an  arrangement  for  prosecut- 
ing the  claim  of  the  Read  heirs  to  the  land  within  the  ju- 
ridical possession,  to  which  it  was  considered  by  them  and 
all  of  us  that  they  had  a  good  title ;  I  think  that  Steinhack 
came  in,  or  it  was  agreed  that  he  should  come  in  at  the  same 
time  ;  it  was  well  understood  by  all  that  Bolton  was  here 
only  temporarily,  and  that  I  was  to  attend  to  the  matter 


219 

here,  and  that  Mr.  Bolton  was  to  attend  to  the  matter  at  the 
east;  Stein  bach  was  to  pay  me  and  the  expenses,  in  consid- 
eration of  which  he  received  from  Bolton  the  conveyance 
of  an  interest ;  Mr.  Bolton,  I  think,  left  very  soon  after  ; 
as  his  representative  I  entered  immediatelj^  upon  the  dis- 
charge of  my  duty  as  the  attorney  for  these  claimants,  and 
have  continued  in  the  discharge  of  these  duties  unremit- 
tingly up  to  the  present  minute ;  as  a  part  of  such  duty,  be- 
sides the  immediate  prosecution  of  proceedings  to  obtain  a 
new  survey,  I  instituted  the  suits  of  Bolton  against  Ker- 
shaw, and  Bolton  against  Van  Reynegom,  in  the  Circuit 
Court,  and  Read  against  Van  Reynegom,  et  at.,  in  the  State 
District  Court,  later;  in  all  of  which  there  were  judgments 
for  the  plaintiffs. 

Q.  4.  Examine  complaint,  marked  Ex.  ^o,  1,  and  state 
if  that  complaint,  as  amended,  was  the  complaint  filed  by 
you  in  the  Circuit  Court,  and  upon  which  judgment  was 
rendered.  A.  i^ot  having  compared  this  paper  with  the 
original,  I  cannot  say  whether  it  is  a  copy  or  not ;  the  orig- 
inal complaint  filed  in  that  cause  was  for  the  tract  of  land 
lying  between  the  Mathewson  survey,  the  Arroyo  Corte  Ma- 
dera del  Presidio — on  which  stood  the  remains  of  the  old 
mill — and  a  line  drawn  trom  the  old  mill  to  the  Holon ;  the 
south  line  of  the  tract,  did  not  conform  exactly  to  the  ar- 
royo,  but,  if  I  remember  aright,  it  was  a  straight  line  drawn 
from  the  point  of  the  sausal,  where  that  arroyo  disembogues 
in  the  estero,  thence  to  the  mill ;  after  the  evidence  was 
closed,  including  an '' ojo  de  vista"  (ocular  inspection  on 
the  ground)  by  the  judge,  and  had  been  some  time  under 
consideration,  a  stipulation  was  entered  into  between  plain- 
tifis  and  defendants,  by  their  respective  attorneys,  by  which 
the  western  line  was  brought  to  its  position  on  the  present 
official  survey;  said  stipulation,  with  the  amended  com- 
plaint^ was  presented  to  the  judge  in  open  court,  and  ordered 
filed  with  an  expression  of  great  relief.  I  remember  that 
there  was  an  error  in  our  first  amended^  complaint ;  it  did 
not  conform  to  our  intentions ;  Philip  Ray  and  Jose  Alber- 
nos  were  struck  out,  because  they  were  occupants  of  the 
land  which  was  cut  off  by  the  amendment. 

Q.  5.  Read  the  description  of  land  in  the  second  amended 
complaint,  and  also  the  stipulation  Exhibit  No.  7,  and  state 
if  said  description  corresponds  to  the  land  sued  for  and 
stipulated  as  in  the  amended  complaint  and  stipulation  you 
refer  to. 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  and  S.  R.  Throckmorton, 
as  immaterial  and  irrelevant. 


220 

A.  The  description  contained  in  the  second  amended 
complaint  is  unquestionably  the  land  that  we  agreed  the  suit 
should  stand  for,  and  the  judgment  should  cover.  Whether 
the  copies  conform  or  not,  I  cannot  tell,  and  the  copy  of  the 
second  amended  complaint  filed  here  corresponds,  so  far  as 
the  western  boundary  is  concerned,  the  arroyo  and  the 
meander  line ;  and  I  presume  the  rest  of  the  boundary  con- 
forms to  the  western  line  of  the  Mathewson  survey — I  could 
not  tell  certainly  without  comparing  it.  As  for  stipulation 
]^o.  7,  I  should  suppose  that  it  did  not  describe  the  land 
that  we  intended  to  describe;  and  my  recollection  is  that  it 
does  not ;  but  I  cannot  specify  from  anything  here  what  the 
error  was. 

Q.  6.  Does  not  the  second  amended  complaint  describe 
the  western  boundary  of  said  rancho,  in  accordance  with  the 
official  plat;  are  not  the  descriptions  identical  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  1st,  Because  it  is  in- 
definite as  to  what  official  plat ;  and  2d,  That  it  is  not  the 
best  evidence  ;  and  3d,  It  is  immaterial. 

S.  R.  Throckmorton  joins  in  said  objection.  * 

A.  It  corresponds  with  the  last  official  survey.   ^ 

Q.  7.  Examine  Exhibits  3,  4,  and  5,  and  state  if  George 
F.  Allardt  and  Wm.  J.  Lewis,  therein  certified  as  witnesses 
in  said  cause,  are  the  same  Allardt  and  Lewis  who  testified 
in  this  examination.     A.  They  are. 

Q.  8.  Examine  Exhibit  I^o.  3,  the  testimony  of  S.  E. 
Throckmorton,  and  state  if  the  said  witness  is  the  same 
Throckmorton  who  appears  as  a  party  to  this  examination. 
A.  He  is  the  same. 

Q.  9.  Examine  Exhibits  Il'fos.  8,  9  and  10,  and  state  if 
you  know  whether  said  Throckmorton  was,  during  the 
pendenc}^  of  said  suit,  interested  both  with  the  defendants 
and  with  the  plaintiff,  and  if  so,  the  nature,  duration  and 
character  of  his  said  interest. 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde  as  incompetent  and  imma- 
terial, except  as  may  relate  to  Mr.  Throckmorton  himself 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Throckmorton  as  inlmaterial  and 
irrelevant,  and  as  containing  a  contradiction  which  can  only 
be  reconciled  by  a  long  explanation. 

A.  At  the  commencement  of  the  suit  he  was  interested 
with  the  defendant,  Philip  Ray,  who  was  his  tenant,  and  he 
took  upon  himself  the  defense  of  said  Ray,  he  claiming  the 
Arroyo  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  as  marked  on  the  last 
official  survey,  as  the  northeastern  boundary  of  his  Rancho 
of  Saucelito.     He  had  no  other  interest  with  the  defendants 


^21 

t<3r  B-ny  oF  them,  and  when  that  land  was  struck  otit,  his 
interest  in  the  defence  ceased.  He  was  the  most  active 
'defendant,  and  the  others  seemed  to  trust  a  good  deal  to  his 
success  as  iinplying  their  own ;  but  he  was  making  his  own 
-fight;  he  did  not  claim  or  pretend  to  represent  them ;  pend- 
ing the  suit,  I  think  he  acquired  an  interest  by  purchase 
from  Steinbach,  in  th«  plaintiff's  title, 

Q.  10.  What  was  the  extent  of  the  interest  acquired  by 
said  Throckmorton  from  plain tiffb,  between  the  limits  and 
'bounds  of  the  lands  described  in  the  second  amended  com- 
^j:)laint  if  any  ?  A.  He  acquired  an  undivided  interest,  in 
the  same  tract  of  land,  and  the  whole  of  it,  which  was  con- 
veyed to  J.  C.  BoJton. 

Q.  11.  What  interest  did  said  Throckmorton  have  in 
the  land  sued  for,  at  the  date  of  the  judgment  in  said  suit, 
as  in  Exhibit  No.  6  ?     A,     Kone. 

Q.  12.  What  interest,  if  any,  has  said  Throckmorton,  in 
^he  lands  embraced  in  the  last  official  survey,  or  in  these 
described  in  the  second  amended  complaint?    A.    None. 

Q.  13.  Examine  Ex.  No.  6,  and  state  if  said  judgment 
embraces  all  the  lauds  sued  for  as  described  in  the  second 
-iimended  complaint,  A.  It  does,  upon  looking  at  Exhibit 
6,  and  comparing  it  with  the  map  of  the  official  survey,  it 
would  appear  that  of  a  tract  of  land  which  was  conveyed  to 
him  at  the  time  of  this  arrangement  a  part  thereof  is  inside 
of  this  survey.  When  I  answered  the  preceding  question,  I 
gave  the  impression  from  my  memory,  and  it  remains  the 
«ame,  but  the  deed  is  better  than  my  memory. 

Q.  14,  Are  you  on  friendly  relations  with  Mr.  Throck- 
morton ?     A.     Certainly. 

Adjourned  till  lOJ  o'clock  to-morrow. 


Met  at  i  past  10  o'clock,  Saturday,  March  ^5th,  1876. 

J.  B,  Howard  oiFers  as  Exhibit  No.  12,  certified  copy  of 
decision  of  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  dated  January  6,  1872. 
Certified,  February  7,  1876.  '  ' 

Peter  Gardner  re-called  by  J.  B.  Howard. 

Q.  1.  Did  you  know  Mary  King,  a  defendant  in  a  suit 
in  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  No.  190,  Bolton  vs.  Van 
Reynegom,  Mary  King  and  others,  and  the  lands  occupied 
by  her  during  said  suit,  and  claimed  in  the  original  com- 
plaint from  her,  and  if  so,  state  ?  A.  I  knew  her  ;  her  name 
was  Mary  J.  King.     I  knew  the  land  occupied  by  her;  the 


222: 

Iknd  is  situated  outside  and  to  the  west  of  the'Ranclio  Corte? 
Madera  del  Presidio,  according  to  the' official  plat ;  is  situate 
in  Township  No.  1,  K  K>  6  W,  Mount  Diablo  Meridian,  andJ 
constituting'  portions  of  sections  20  and  29.  The  exact  lo- 
cation T  cannot  specifically  paint  out. 

Q.  2.  Bid  you  know  that  said  Mary  J.  King,  appeared? 
and  defended  the- suit?     A.     She  did'. 

Q,  B.  Did  you  know  the  result  of  the  suit  as  to  saic^ 
Mary  J.  King  ?     A.     It  was  decid-ed  in  her  favor. 

Oro^s-Ekamination  hy  S.  B,  Tlwockmorton,. 

Q.  1.  Dkl  you  know  a  man-  by  name  of  Shaw  who  lived! 
i-n  that  neighborhood  ?  A.  I  knew  A.  R.  Shaw  in  that 
neighborhood,  when  he  was  living  on  that  place. 

Q.  2.  Can  you  descinbe  the  piece  of  land  he  occupied,  in 
the  mouth  of  that  gulch  where  Mrs.  King  lived. 

Objected  to  by  J.  B.  Howard  as  inumaterial,  untili  the  in- 
terest oi  said  Sl^iaw  is  shown  as  to  land  within  the  survey,, 
or  he  is  brought  in  privity  with  some  claimant  thereto,  or 
until  the  purpose  intended  is  n^ade  known. 

A.     Yes,  sir ;  he  lived  on  section  29. 

Q.  3.  Can  you  tell  what  part  of  that  land  he  lived  on  ? 
A.  He  lived  within  a  few  yards  of  the  ne^v  fence,  a  little 
north-east  of  where  the  house  of  Borotra  is. 

Q.  4.  Can  jou  tell  how  far  up  the  valley  his  claims  ex- 
tended? A.  T  do  not  know  that  he  had^  or  pretended  to 
have  a  claim  there. 

Q.  5.  Do  you  know  that  be  lived  there  ?  A.  He  lived 
there. 

Q.  t).  Did  be  live  there  with  bis  family  ?  A.  He  liyed 
there  with  his  family. 

Q.  7.  Do  you  know  of  bis  having  a  child  born  to  him 
on  the  4th  of  July  on  that  land  ?     A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  8.  Do  you  remember  who  lived  to  the  Korth  of  his 
place  at  the  time  that  he  lived  there.  A.  I  do  ;  John  Gray 
and  his  brother  lived  north  of  Shaw,  and  they  were  suc- 
ceeded in  the  occupation  by  a  Chileno  who  kept  sheep 
there.  Gray  claimed  as  a  pre-emptor.  I  do  not  know 
whether  he  had  tiled  his  pre-emption  claim  or  not. 

Q.  9.  How  long  did  the  Chileno  live  there  ?  A.  A 
couple  of  years,  or  so. 

Q.  10.  Do  you  remember  the  year  Gray  went  there  ?  A. 
I  think  it  was  1864  when  Gray  was  there ;  am  not  very 
clear  as  to  the  date. 

Q.  il.    Do  you  know  of  any  one  having  pre-empted  that 


223 

valley   before   Gray  ?     A.  I   do  not  know  about  the  pre- 
emption ;  I  know  that  some  person  lived  there  before  Gray. 

Q.  12.  Do  you  know  that  the  heirs  of  Juan  Head  asserted 
that  the  persons  living  on  the  land  we  are  now  speaking  of 
were  their  tenants  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  J.  B.  Howard,  as  not  being  the 
best  evidence;  and  farther,  that  Circuit  Court  Exhibits  1  to 
10  inclusive  set  forth  the  claim  of  the  Read  heirs  to  said 
lands,  and  the  abandonment  thereof,  as  public  lauds. 

S.  R.  Throckmorton  excepts  to  the  foregoing  objection, 
because  the  said  Exhibits  from  1  to  10  establish  no  such 
conclusion,  as  is  asserted  ;  but  on  the  contrary,  the  Judg- 
ment Exhibit  l!^o.  6  establish  conclusively  that  no  such 
abandonment  was  made  or  contemplated. 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  they  asserted  that  the  parties 
were  their  tenants  ;  but  I  do  know  that  they,  the  heirs  of 
Read,  claimed  the  land. 

Q.  13.  Were  you  present  most  of  the  time  during  the 
trial,  in  theU.  S.  Circuit  Court,  of  the  cause  entitled  Bolton 
vs.  Van  Reynegom  and  others  ?     A.I  was. 

Q.  14.  Look  at  official  map  of  Ransom  &  Allardt,  and  at 
the  line  marked  thereon,  from  post  C.  M.  181  to  redwood 
post  P.  Q.  99  W.,  R.  203,  and  state  whether  that  is  so  laid 
down  on  said  map  as  the  western  boundary  of  the  Rancho 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  and  whether  at  that  trial  you 
heard  testimony  given  by  the  witnesses  for  plaintiffs  in  that 
suit,  and  whether  said  testimony  went  to  establish  the  boun- 
dary to  the  west  of  said  line  on  official  map. 

Objected  to  by  J.  B.  Howard,  on  the  ground  that  the 
official  map  and  the  judgment  roll  in  said  suit  are  the  best 
evidence. 

A.  That  line  is  laid  down  on  that  map  as  the  western 
boundary,  but  the  testimony  of  the  plaintiffs  upon  that  trial 
went  to  establish  the  western  boundary  nearly  half  a  mile 
to  the  west  of  said  line,  up  to  the  old  saw  mill. 

Q.  15.  How  long  have  you  lived  in  the  neighborhood  of 
the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ?  A.  About  twenty- 
three  years. 

Re-examined  hy  J.  B,  Howard, 

Q.  1.  State  if  you  know,  and  point  out  on  the  official 
Allardt-Ransom  plat,  the  location  of  "Wormouth's  House  " 
mentioned  in  Circuit  Court  Exhibit  No.  5.  A.  I  know- 
where  it  is.  It  is  near  Station  No.  "  C.  M.  181,"  point  of 
beginning  on  said  plat. 


224 

Q.  2.  Please  state  if  you  know,  and  point  out  the  Joea^ 
tion  on  the  official  plat  of  the  point,  '•  Station  18"  mentioned 
in  Circuit  Court  Exhibit  'No.  4,  as  on  defendants'  map  "B,"" 
in  said  suit  No.  190  in  Circuit  Court.  The  testimony  of  Al- 
lardt  is  as  follows  :  "  My  recollection  "  is  that  we  considered 
that  the  solar,  Station  18.  Testimony  of  Lewis,  Exhibit  5^ 
locates  said  solar  near  Wormouth's  house.  The  testimony 
of  S.  R.  Throckmorton  in  said  Circuit  Court,  Exhibit  !N'o. 
3,  as  follows :  "  The  land  of  the  solar  is  a  clear  field,  arable, 
and  has  been  cultivated.  The  pencil  line  running  through 
the  solar,  runs  through  a  natural  ravine,  through  which 
came  in  1857,  and  quite  lately,  a  trail  through  from  San 
Rafael  ;  and  this  solar  formed  an  open  field  between  that 
and  the  house.  In  vicinity  of  the  mill,  up  to  the  mill,  the 
redwood  forest  tapers  ofif  to  single  trees,  large  trees  scat- 
tered, and  soon  comes  to  madrona,  heavy  laurel  interspersed 
with  an  occasional  redw^ood.  Excepting  the  side  of  the 
creek,  the  ravines  and  gulches  are  clothed  with  redwood 
mixed  with  laurels  and  undergrowth.  There  are  enough 
redwoods  in  the  vicinity  of  the  mill  to  call  it  a  grove,  but 
not  enough  to  call  it  a  forest.  In  the  vicinity  of  the  mill 
the  slope  of  the  hill  is  to  the  south,  nothing  to  the  west." 
The  witness  is  requested  to  state  if  the  above  be  correct 
according  to  his  knowledge,  and  also  to  locate,  if  he  can, 
on  the  official  plat,  said  "Station  18,"  said  '''Wormouth's 
House,"  and  said  "solar,"  as  established  by  said  Throck- 
morton as  above  indicated ;  also,  the  location  of  the  begin- 
ning of  the  forest  of  redwoods,  as  set  forth  in  said  exhibits, 
and  the  extension  northerly  from  said  solar  of  the  westerly 
line  of  said  rancho  as  indicated  in  said  exhibits  3,  4,  and  5, 
as  you  understood  at  the  time  from  the  testimony,  agree- 
ments, and  stipulations  of  said  Throckmorton  in  said  suit, 
and  as  you  now  understand  the  same  from  his  position  in 
the  said  suit. 

Objected  to  by  S.  R.  Throckmorton  as  irrelevant,  imma- 
terial, and  as  not  tending  to  establish  the  boundaries  of 
juridical  possession  of  said  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Pre- 
sidio; also  on  the  ground  that  disconnected  and  garbled 
extracts  from  testimony  cannot  be  used  as  evidence,  and  be- 
cause when  Mr.  Allardt  used  the  words  "are established  the 
solar,"  the  w^ord  "are  "  was  not  used  in  connection  with 
any  of  the  parties  to  these  objections,  but  referred  to  an 
erroneous  or  uncertain  location  of  said  solar  made  by  him 
and  Dr.  Mathewson  at  a  former  period  and  at  a  time  when 
they  had  not  full  and  proper  instructions  from  this  office  for 


225 

the  purpose  of  making  said  snrvey  ;  also  because  said 
Throckmorton,  spoken  of  in  said  testimony',  did  not  locate 
the  solar  or  pretend  to  do  so  from  nny  knowledge  of  his 
•own,  and  also  because  there  exists  in  record  of  said  suit  in 
the  Circuit  C5ourt  referred  to  no  agreement  made  by  said 
Throckmorton  with  any  parties,  and  because  stipulations 
made  by  counsel,  parties  to  that  suit,  is  attempted  to  be 
perverted  and  fahaciously  asserted  as  an  agreement  or  agree- 
ments, neither  of  which,  beyond  said  stipulation,  exists  in 
said  cause,  and  because  this  question  is  made  in  its  form  a 
vehicle  of  misrepresentation  and  false  conclusions. 

A.  Station  '^  18  "  referred  to  is  station  "  3  "  on  the  offi- 
<jlal  Ransom^Allardt  Map;  ''  Wormouth's  House"  is  near 
post  C.  M.  P.  181  on  said  plat.  ''  The  beginning  of  the  for- 
est of  redwoods,"  I  cannot  describe  without  examining  the 
Exhibits  thoroughly,  but  I  can  describe  of  my  own  knowl- 
edire  where  it  is;  it  is  at  station  '^  5  "  on  the  Allardt  map. 

Here  J.  B.  Howard  interrupts  witness,  and  said;  Solar 
fis  established  by  Throckmorton  as  above  indicated,  is  near 
^Station  3  on  the  official  map,  but  it  is  not  a  proper  location 
of  the  solar.  The  opinion  of  the  witness  is  not  desired,  but 
only  facts.     J.  B.  H. 

Shanklin,  counsel  for  Throckmorton,  moves  to  strike  out 
the  above  objection  made  by  Mr.  Howard  to  the  answer  of 
his  own  witness,  since  the  opinion  of  the  witness  was  called 
for  by  the  previous  question  of  Mr.  Howard,  as  to  the  cor- 
rectness of  Throckmorton's  testimony  concerning  the  loca- 
tion of  the  different  points  referred  to  in  the  question. 

J.  B.  Howard  requests  the  witness  to  answer  according  to 
his  own  knowledge  only,  and  not  to  give  any  opinion  on 
any  subject,  and  question  repeated  as  to  location  of  westerly 
line  of  said  rancho  in  said  suit. 

Shatiklin,  counsel  for  Throckmorton,  objects  to  the  fore- 
going instruction  of  witness,  since  it  appears  that  the  latter 
part  of  the  instruction  refers  to  new  matter  and  not  to  the 
previous  question  or  the  Exhibit  now  before  witness. 

A.  Mr.  Throckmorton  was  the  principal  instigator  of 
this  stipulation,  which  was  the  principal  foundation  for  the 
establishment  of  the  boundaries  designated  in  the  judgment, 
for  the  other  defendants  nor  their  attorney  knew  nothing 
about  it. 

Q.  3.  What  was  the  location  of  the  western  boundary 
of  said  rancho,  as  urged  and  agreed  to  by  said  S.  R.  Throck- 
morton in  said  suit? 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Shanklin,  counsel  for  S.  E. 


226' 

Thrackmorton,  on  the  groundy  1st.  That  the  jaJgment  of 
the  Court  did  not  attempt  to  establish  any  boundary  or 
"boundaries  of  the  ranch  a  as  such,  but  boundaries  between; 
parties  referretl  to  in  the  stipulation,  which  cannot  be 
ehanged  or  affected  by  parol  testimony ;  2d.  That  it  is  not 
the  best  evidence  ;  and  because  the  judgment  of  the  saidi 
Circuit  Court,  which  is  put  in  evidence  in  this  case  by  J^ 
B.  Howard  as  the  result  of  said  stipulation,  does  not  estab- 
lish any  western  boundary  to  the  said  raneho  Corte  Madera 
del  Presidio,  as  the  result  of  said  stipulatioii,  either  directly, 
or  infer  en  ti  ally,  or  at  all;  but  is  simply  for  the  possession 
of  certain  lands  described  as  a  part  of.  said  raneho  by  the 
courses  and  distances  therein  set  Ibrthy  and  is  expressed  as- 
being  for  '' the  possession  of  those  certain  lands  and  prem- 
ises, situate  in  the  county  of  Marin^  State  of  California,  and 
described'  in  the  amended  complaint  herein  as  being  part  of 
the  Kancha  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  or  Read  rancho^ 
bounded  and  described  as  follows,  etc.;"  said  Exhibit  No. 
6  showing  conclusively  the  judgment  of  the  Court  as  not 
having  established  any  boundary  whatevery  but  oi>ly  a  judg- 
ment in  ejectment,  referring  to  a  part  of  the  land  inclosed 
in  said  rancho. 

Question  withdrawn, 

Q.  4.  Was  S.  R.  Throckmorton^  ik)w  present,  the  same 
Throckmorton  who  appeared  as  a  party  witness  and  active 
man  in  said  suit  ?     A.  The  same  man. 

Shanklin,  counsel  for  Throckmorton,  moves  to  strike  out 
the  forgoing  question  and  answer,  so  far  as  the  same  relates 
to  S.  R.  Throckmorton  as  a  party  to  the  suit  referred  to,  the 
documentary  evidence  only  showing  that  he  was  called  as  a 
witness  in  the  case. 

Adjourned  till  10:S0  o'clock  Monday  next. 


Met,  pursuant  to  adjournment,  Monday   27th,  and   ad- 
journed till  Tuesday  28th. 


Met,  pursuant  to  adjournment,  Tuesday  28th,  and   ad- 
journed till  half  past  one. 


Adjourned  at  2  o'clock  p,  m.  until  to-morrow,  at  half  past 
ten  A.  M. 


227 

Wednesday,  March  29th,  1876.  Met,  pursuant  to  adjourn- 
ment. 

Mullen  &  H^^de  here  ofter  to  be  filed  as  an  Exhibit,  and 
to  be  used  in  this  case  as  a  measure,  as  follows : 

A  metallic  scale  of  cordeles,  made  and  graduated  so  as  to 
be  equivalent  to,  and  identical  with  a  scale  of  20  chains  to 
an  inch  (the  said  last-named  scale  being  the  one  used  in 
compiling  the  official  plat  of  the  Ransom  survey  of  the 
rancho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio),  and  which  metallic 
scale  of  cordeles  is  colored  as  follows,  to  wit :  the  portion 
colored  green,  to  represent  a  length  of  ninety  cordeles,  of 
fifty  Castillian  varas  each;  the  portion  colored  black, to  rep- 
resent the  length  of  sixteen  cordeles,  of  fifty  Castillian  varas 
each  ;  the  portion  colored  red,  to  represent  a  length  of  nine- 
ty-four cordeles,  of  fifty  Castillian  varas  each ;  the  portion 
colored  blue,  to  represent  a  length  of  two  hundred  cordeles, 
of  fifty  Castillian  varas  each. 

The  said  lengths  being  attached  to  each  other,  and  form 
a  figure — shape  it  as  you  will — the  periphery,  or  lineal 
length,  of  the  exterior  boundaries^of  which  will  measure  ex- 
actly 20,000  Casiillian  varas. 

Objected  to  by  Sol.  A.  Sharp. 

Geo.  F.  AUardt  recalled  by  Mullen  &  Hyde. 

Q.  1.  Are  you  the  same  G.  F.  Allardt  who  has  already 
testified  as  a  witness  in  this  case  ?     A.     I  am. 

Q.  2.  Have  you  recently,  and  if  so,  state  when,  made 
any  instrumental  examination,  and  if  so,  state  what,  and 
how  made,  of  any  points  on  the  ground  of  land  represented 
as  a  portion  of  the  Rancho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  on 
the  official  plat  of  a  survey  purporting  to  have  been  made  by 
the  late  Leander  Ransom,  and  which  plat  I  now  show  you — 
if  so,  state  fully  and  in  detail  all  matters  thereto  pertaining. 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Sharp  on  the  ground  that  his  official 
instructions  to,  and  his  return  of  the  survey  under  said 
instructions,  are  the  best  evidence.  Mr.  Brooks  makes  the 
same  objection,  and  that  the  same  is  irrelevant  and  imma- 
terial. 

A.  I  was  on  the  ground,  March  23d,  1876,  where  I  found 
an  old  stone  mound,  which  was  pointed  out  to  me  by  Peter 
Gardner. 

For  the  description  of  said  mound,  I  quote  from  my  field 
notes,  as  made  at  the  ground  on  that  day  :  "  Beginning  at  an 
old  stone  mound,  on  the  top  of  a  round  grassy  knoll;  the 
mound  is  evidently  an   artificial  one,  about  four  feet  in 


228 

diameter,  and  two  feet  high,  composed  of  stone,  from  six 
inches  to  two  feet  long,  and  bears  evidence  of  great  age;  by 
Aneroid  measurement,  it  is  440  feet  above  the  tide;  it  is 
the  nearest  high  knoll  to  the  bay  ;  there  are  no  other  loose 
stones  near  the  mound."  From  this  stone  mound,  I  ran,  by 
compass  and  chain,  N.  15|  degrees  east  true  course,  35.77 
chains,  to  a  post  marked  "6.55;"  which  post  is  identical 
with  Station  522 ;  that  is  at  the  end  of  the  521st  course,  of 
the  Ransom  survey  of  said  ranch o. 

Q.  3.  From  said  old  stone  mound,  did  you  take  any 
bearings  to  any  other  objects,  and  if  so,  what  objects,  and 
what  bearing  ? 

Objected  to  by  Sharp,  as  immaterial,  irrelevant  and  in- 
competent. 

A.  I  did  ;  I  took  the  following  bearings,  namely  :  Tibu- 
ron  Peak,  bears  S.  41  E.;  the  extreme  easterly  point  of  San 
Quentin  Ferry  wharf  bears  K  12i<^  E.  The  Peak  of  Ta- 
malpais  bears  IS".  78J  ^  W.,  and  California  Oity  Point  bears 
very  nearly  due  East. 

Q.  4.  Please  describe* the  face  of  the  ground  that  would 
lay  on  a  direct  line,  passing  through  said  stone  mound,  and" 
the  end  of  the  521st  course  on  the  map  of  Ransom  survey  of 
said  Rancho  of  *'  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio." 

Same  objection  by  Sharp. 

A.  From  said  mound,  the  ground  descends  quite  regu- 
larly, to  the  end  of  the  said  521st  course  ;  being  a  flat,  grassy 
spur,  extending  to  the  bay;  south  of  said  mound,  the  ground 
descends  for  about  five  chains,  and  then  ascends  fifteen 
chains,  to  the  top  of  the  main  ridge. 

Q.  5.  From  the  top  of  the  ridge — lying  between  said 
old  stone  mound,  and  John  Read's  present  house,  the  posi- 
tion of  which  is  represented  on  the  plat  of  the  Ransom  sur- 
vey, near  the  course  241,  did  you  take  any  bearing  of  any 
objects,  and  if  so,  what  bearings,  and  to  what  objects? 

Mr.  Sharp  objects  as  being  irrelevant,  and  calling  for  facts 
foreign  to  the  issue  in  controversy,  and  also  that  it  is 
hypothetical:  and  because  it  assumes  facts  not  in  proof. 

A.  I  did;  from  a  point  on  the  top  of  the  ridge,  said 
stone  mound  bears  I^.  42J  E.,  distant  20.23  chains,  and  said 
John  Read's  house  bears  S.  47^^  W.  The  Peak  of  Ta- 
malpais  bears  N.  75J  <^  W.,  and  Tiburon  peak  bears  S.  47  ^ 
E.  The  distance  as  I  ascertained  it  approximately  by  trian- 
gulation  from  said  stone  mound,  to  the  Peak  of  Tamalpais, 
is  375  chains ;  from  said  stone  mound  to  Tiburon  Peak  is 
193  chains. 


•229 

Q.  6.  You  speak  of  said  mound  as  being  an  old  iiont 
cniound ;  please  state  what  are  the  external  indications  of 
lao^e  that  cause  vou  to  desisjnate  it  as  beiw^  old  ?  A,  Its 
.general  appearance. 

Q.  7.  Bo  the  stones  constituting  the  exterior  of  said 
'mound  show  on  their  surface  old  mosses,  and  do  said  stones, 
as  shown  from  the  exterior  of  said  mound,  bear  evidence  of 
^  want  of  disturbance  in  their  several  positions  in  said 
mound? 

Objected  to  bj  Mr.  Sharp,  on  the  grounds  that  any  number 
of  stones  so  gathered  in  that  locality^  and  tbus  placed  together, 
would  show  the  sarrte  mossy  evidence^  since  all  the  stones  in 
that  vicinity  are  covered  with  moss. 

A.  The  stones  are  covered  with  mosses  on  the  side  ex- 
posed to  the  air,  and  in  my  judgment  have  not  been  dis- 
turbed for  several  years  ;  how  many  years,  it  is  impossible 
for  me  to  state. 

Q.  8.  Did  .you,  on  t-bc  sjround,  at  the  date  of  this  last- 
named  survey  °(23d  of  March,  1876),  make  any  sketches  of 
said  old  stone  mound  and  the  grassy  knoll,  upon  the  top  of 
which  said  stone  mound  at  said  date  stood,  or  of  any  other 
prominent  featui^s  or  landmarks  in  the  immediate  vicinity 
thereof? 

Objected  to  as  immaterial,  irrelevant,  and  incompetent, 
^nd  as  not  tending  to  prove  any  fact  at  issue  in  this  contro- 
versy. 

A.  I  made  a  topographical  sketch  of  said  knoll;  also  of 
the  slope  between  said  knoll  and  the  bay  ;  also  of  the  main 
ridge  near  and  south  of  said  knoll. 

Q.  9.  Will  you  prepare  a  sketch,  such  as  you  have  de- 
scribed in  jour  last  answer,  at  your  earliest  leisure,  tor  the 
purpose  of  being  filed  in  this  case  ?     A.  I  will  do  so. 

Q.  10,  Please  indicate  and  mark  in  lead  pencil  on  the 
official  map  the  position  of  said  stone  mound,  and  the  posi- 
tion on  the  top  of  the  ridge,  from  both  of  which  you  took 
the  bearing,  as  stated  by  you,  and  transfer  the  same  on  the 
plat  filed  by  Mullen  &  Hyde  with  their  motion  of  October 
27,  1875,  and  now  ofiered  in  evidence  as  Exhibit,  marked 
as  follows,  "  M.  H.  X.  Y.  Z." 

Exhibit  objected  to  by  Mr.  Sharp. 

B.  S.  Brooks  reserves  the  right  of  objecting  to  the  fore- 
going questions. 

A.  I  have  transferred  the  same  as  requested,  and  marked 
and  designated  the  same  in  red  ink  on  said  Exhibit  for  said 
stone  mound ;   I  have  written  "  stone  mound,''  and  for  said 


my 

nctge  1  have  written,  "  top  of  main  ridge,"  and  I  have- sketches- 
some  topography  at  those  points. 

Q.  11.  Please  mark  in  red'  ink  on  said  map  the  position- 
of  said  course  "521/'  and  abo  that  of  John  Read's  house^. 
as  testified  to  by  you,  being  near  course  241  as  represented 
on  the  plat  of  the  Ransom?  sui^vey.  A.  I  have  marked  in 
red  ink  the  end  of  the  said  52l8t  course,  "•  end  of  course^ 
521,"  and  I  have  marked  in  red  ink  said  Read's  house  witb 
the  words  ''J.  Read's  house." 

Mullen  &  Hyde  now  offer  in  evidence,  by  certified  copy^ 
the  testimony  of  Eusebio  Galinda,  James  T.  Strattan  and 
Juan  Read,  as  by  them  given  in  the  case  of  James  C.  Bol- 
ton vs.  John  Lp.  Van  Reynegom^e^  aL,m  the  case  so  entitled^ 
before  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  XJ.  S;  for  the  circuit  includ- 
ing the  State  of  California,  and  marked  M.  H.,  A.  B.  C. 

Q.  12.  Since  the  date  when  you  last  testified  in  this^ 
case,  have  you  had  any  interest  in  the  result  of  this  contro- 
vers}' ;  or  have  you  ever  had  any  interest  in  the  same,  im- 
mediate or  prospective  ;  oi'  are  you  related  by  blood  or  mar- 
riage witli  any  of  the  parties  herein?  A.  I  have  not,  nor 
have  I  ever  had  any  interest  in  the  result  of  this  contro- 
versy, nor  am  I  related  either  by  blood  ar  marriage  with 
any  of  the  parties  thereto. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  here  give  notice  that  they  will  furnish 
topographical  sketch  referred  to-. 

Mr.  Allardt,  the  witness,  is  asked  by  Mr.  Cutter  for 
Mr.  Gardner,  to  transfer  from  the  official  plat  the  position 
of  the  old  stone  mound  mentioned  ;  the  j>osition  on  top  of 
ridge  from  which  witness  took  the  bearings,  as  stated  by 
him  in  answer  to  previous  question  to-day  ;  and  also  the  end 
of  521st  course  of  the  Ransom  survey,  and  mark  them  in 
red  ink  on  Exhibit  "P.  G.  No,  2." 

A.  I  have  so  marked  said  points  on  said  Exhibit,  and 
properly  designated  them  in  red  ink. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  withdraw  Exhibit  marked  M.  &  H.  A. 
B.  C,  by  consent,  and  ask  leave  to  file  the  whole  i'ecord  in 
the  case  ot  James  C.  Bolton. 

Q.  13.  In  the  distances  that  you  state  from  said  old 
stone  mound  to  Peak  Tiburon  and  Peak  Tamalpais,  are 
said  distances  by  direct  air  line,  or  such  as  would  be  obtained 
by  surface  measurement  on  the  ground  ?  A.  The  distances 
are  by  direct  air  line,  and  correspond  to  horizontal  chaining. 

Q.  11.  Would  the  undulations  of  the  ground  increase  or 
diminish  those  distances  ?  A.  It  would  increase  the  dis- 
tance as  measured  by  a  chain,  along  such  undulations. 


231 

Cross- Examination  by  B.  S.  Brooks, 

Q.  15.  How  many  surveys  have  you  made  in  the  vicinity 
of  the  looaUty  of  which  you  speak  in  your  direct  examina- 
tion to-day  ?  A.  I  have  surveyed  in  that  vicinity  the  "  Cal- 
ifornia City  tract ;"  also,  the  survey  of  this  rancho  under 
R.  C.  Mathewson  ;  also,  the  tide  land  surveys  for  the  State 
of  California. 

Q.  16.  When  did  you  first  see  the  mound  of  stones  tes- 
tified to  by  you  ?     A.  On  March  23d,  1876. 

Q.  17.  In  making  your  surveys  did  you  not  frequently 
cross  the  rancho?  A.  I  have  traveled  over  the  rancho  at 
various  times,  in  difierent  localities  of  the  same. 

Q.  18.  You  have  made  other  surveys  on  the  rancho, 
have  you  not  ?     A,  Yes. 

Q.  19.  Have  you  not  very  frequently  seen  heaps  of  stones 
just  like  that  on  lands  that  have  been  ploughed  ?  A.  I  have 
not. 

Q.  20.  Is  it  not  customary  on  lands  where  a  reaper  is 
used,  to  gather  up  stones  in  similar  heaps? 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  because  the  question 
assumes,  somewhat  remotely,  that  the  knoll  upon  which 
this  old  stone  mound  stands,  either  is  or  has  been  under  cul- 
tivation, which  fact  is  not  established  as  yet. 

A.  I  am  not  familiar  with  farming  operations  or  the  use 
of  reapers. 

Q.  21.  Will  you  swear  that  that  mound  is  over  three 
years  old  ?  A.  I  would  not  positively.  I  am  unable  to 
state  how  old  it  is. 

Q.  22.  On  which  side  of  the  stones  is  the  moss?  A.  On 
the  sides  exposed  to  the  weather. 

Q.  23.  Then  I  understand  you  to  mean  that  the  moss 
does  not  grow  on  the  side  of  the  west,  any  more  than  it 
does  on  the  sides  at  the  north,  south,  or  east?  A.  No,  I  do 
not  mean  that;  I  mean  that  the  moss  grows  on  all  sides  of 
the  stones  except  its  bottom,  on  which  it  rests  on  the  earth, 
or  on  other  stones.  If  the  mound  were  near  one,  I  would 
expect  to  find  moss  on  the  bottom  of  the  stones  as  well  as 
on  other  surfaces. 

Q.  24.  You  were  taken  then  expressly  to  locate  that 
mound,  were  you  not  ?  A.  Yes,  to  locate  the  mound  and 
determine  the  adjacent  topography. 

Q.  25.  Did  the  man  who  conducted  you  there  show  you 
the  mound  ?    A.  Yes. 

Q.  26.    K  a  person  of  ordinary   common  sense  were  to 


232 

construct  a  mound  which  he  desired  should  have  the  appear- 
ance of  antiquity,  don't  you  think  he  would  have  sense 
enough  to  put  the  stones  mossy  side  up  ?  A.  I  think  he 
ought  to  have  sense  enough  to  do  so. 

Be-direct  by  Mullen  ^  Hyde. 

Q.  27.  Was  said  grassy  knoll,  on  which  said  old  mound 
was  situated,  on  the  23d  of  March,  1876,  under  cultivation,, 
or  did  it  bear  any  evidence  of  ever  having  been  under  cul- 
tivation in  any  manner? 

Mr.  Brooks  objects  to  competency  of  witness  to  answer^ 
since  he  has  already  testified  to  his  want  of  such  knowledge. 

A.  Said  gragsy  knoll  was  not  under  cultivation  on  March 
23d,  1876,  nor  did  I  discover  any  traces  of  cultivation  or 
ploughing,  there  or  in  that  vicinity. 

Q.  28.  Could  any  person  have  passed  over  or  have  been 
upon  said  grassy  knoll  since  the  date  when  said  old  stone 
mound  was  established  thereon  without  seeing  said  mound; 
could  such  a  thing  be  possible  ?  A.  Said  stone  mound  is  a 
very  prominent  and  conspicuous  object,  and  no  one  could 
cross  the  knoll,  with  his  eyes  open,  without  seeing  it. 

Q.  29.  In  all  the  surveys  that  you  have  made,  or  been 
engaged  in  making  of  the  lands  represented  on  the  plat  of 
the  Ransom  survey  of  the  rancho  of  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio,  did  any  of  the  lines  thereof  extend  over  this  par- 
ticular knoll,  upon  which  this  particular  old  stone  mound  is 
estabhshed  ?     A.  They  did  not. 

G.  F.  ALLARDT. 

OrosS'Examination  of  Mr,  Brooks  by  Mr,  Throckmorton. 

Q.  1.  How  long  have  you  been  acquainted  with  Mr. 
William  J.  Lewis,  surveyor  and  civil  engineer,  who  has  tes- 
tified in  this  case,  or  about  what  length  of  time  ?  A.  I  do 
not  know,  and  I  do  not  know  that  I  have  ever  been  ac- 
quainted with  him  ;  I  have  come  in  contact  with  him  as  a 
surveyor,  in  the  course  of  my  professional  practice  as  a  law- 
yer, at  rare  intervals,  during  the  last  twenty  years. 

Adjourned  till  ten  o'clock  to-morrow. 


Thursday,  March  30th,  1876.     Met,  pursuant  to  adjourn- 
ment. 


m 

i?.'  C.  Itopkins  re-calted  bij  S.  /?.  ft&oclMorton. 

ti.  1.  Exhibit  S.  R.  T.  Kb.  is  shown  to  witness,  aiut 
he  is  asked  if  the  paper  shown  him,  and  which  is  on  tile  iii 
this  case,  marked  in  blue  "  383,"  is  in  his  handwriting,  and 
whether  it  is  a  copy  of  the  instructions  given  to  Leunder 
Ransom  for  the  surve}^  of  the  rancho  of  Corte  de  Madera. 

Objected  to  by  J.  13.  Howard,  1st,  because  it  does  not  ap- 
pear that  the  witness  was  Surveyor-General  in  1873  ;  2d, 
because  records  of  the  office  of  Surveyor-General  must  be 
jM'bved  by  the  certificate  of  that  officer  ;  and  31,  because 
said  paper  does  not  appear  to  have  been  signed  by  any  per- 
son, nor  filed  with  any  record,  and  is  not  dated  ;  it  is  ad- 
dressed in  pencil,  and  is  evidently  a  rough  draft  of  some 
paper  not  pertaining  to  the  records. 

Sol.  A.  Sharp  makes  sdme  objections. 

A.  The  Exhibit  referred  to  is  in  my  hand\vntinor  ;  T 
cannot  say  whether  or  not  it  is  a  copy  or  unsigned  duplicate 
of  the  instructions  given  to  Leander  Ransom  of  the  survey 
of  the  rancho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio. 

J.  A.  Robinson,  beitig  called  by  Mr.  Throckniorton, 
and  sworn  by  H.  G.  Rollins^  U.  S.  Siltveyor-General,  testi- 
fied as  follows  : 

Q.  1.  What  position  do  you  hold  in  this  office,  aiul  for 
what  length  of  time  have  vou  held  the  same  ?  A.  I  ahi 
Oaief  Clerk  of  the  office,  ana  have  held  such  position  going 
on  six  years. 

Q.  2.  Do  you  know,  either  from  your  own  knowledge  or 
from  the  official  records  of  this  office,  whether  any  special 
\vritten  instructions  w^ere  issued  to  Leander  Ransom  by  the 
U.  S.  Surveyor-General  for  California,  J.  R.  Hardenburgh, 
w^hen  the  said  Ransom  was  appointed  as  a  Deputy  U.  S* 
Surveyor,  for  making  the  survey  of  the  Rancho  "El  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio,"  in  1873?  A.  The  records  at  the 
office,  under  date  of  December  9, 1878,  say  that  instructions 
were  issued  to  Leander  Ransom, 

Q.  3.  Do  the  records  say  that  spiecial  written  instriic- 
tions  were  given,  or  that  any  written  instructions  were  giveii? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  4,  Do  you  know  of  any  written  instructions  being  on  file 
for  the  survey  of  the  aforesaid  rancho,  in  this  office,  or  that 
a,ny  sucli  have  ever  been  in  this  office,  as  a  part  of  the  rec- 
ord proceedings  concerning  said  ranclio?  A.  I  do  not  find 
4iny  among  the  papers  in  the  case. 


234 

Q.  5.  Have  you  ever  known  of  any  written  instructions 
to  l)ave  been  c^lven  in  the  case  to  Col.  llansonn  ?  A.  I  re- 
member that  he  had  instructions  to  make  the  survey  from 
G  e  ?i  e  ra  1  Hard  e  n  b  u  rgh . 

Q.  6.  Please  to  answer  my  question  as  to  written  instruc- 
tions.    A.  I  don't  remember  whether  he  had  or  had  not. 

Q.  7.  Would  you,  from  your  relations  with  this  othce, 
be  likely  to  know  whether  or  not  written  instructions  were 
given  in  this  case?     A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  8.  Have  you  any  knowledge  that  written  instructions 
were  ever  issued  to  Col.  Ransom  for  the  survey  of  the  ran- 
cho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ?     A.  No,  sir. 

Cross-examination  by  S.  A.  Sharp. 

Q.  9.  Please  make  a  concise  statement  of  all  you  know 
concerning  or  appertaining  to  the  instructions  issued  to  Col. 
Ransom,  directing  him  to  make  a  survey  of  the  rancho  of 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio. 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Shanklin,  as  not  being  cross-examina- 
tion, and  also  because  verbal  instructions  for  the  survey  of 
a  rancho  was  contrary  to  the  rules  and  regulations  issued 
by  the  department  for  making  official  surveys  of  Mexican 
grants. 

A.  Mr.  Leander  Ransom,  the  oldest  Deputy  connected 
with  this  office,  was,  by  Mr.  Ilardenburgh,  directed  to  make 
the  survey  of  this  rancho  in  1873;  he  was  furnished  with  a 
copy  of  the  decision  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  dated 
January  6th,  1872 — copy  of  opinion  of  W.  H.  Smith,  As- 
sistant Attorney-General,  dated  December  26th,  1871 — copy 
of  the  letter  of  Commissioner  of  General  Land  Office,  trans- 
mitting map  as  guide  to  surveyor  for  making  survey— copy 
of  original  diseiio  of  the  rancho — a  copy  of  the  record  of 
juridical  measurement  and  possession  ;  and  my  recollection 
is,  the  map  that  accompanied  the  letter  of  the  commissioner 
ordering  the  survey  was  furnished  him  or  delivered  to  him. 
Whether  he  had  written  instructions  to  make  the  survey,  I 
do  not  know  ;  I  know  that  he  had  verbal  instructions  from 
General  Hardenburgh  to  make  the  survey  ;  I  think  if  writ- 
ten instructions  were  given  him,  they  were  prepared  by  R. 
C.  Hopkins,  then  keeper  of  the  archives ;  Mr.  Ransom,  in 
sworn  return  of^ — 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Shanklin,  because  witness  has  no 
right  to  quote  from  a  paper  in  the  case;  the  record  must 
speak  for  itself. 


235 

Objectiofi  oveiTiiled;  witness  permitted  to  complete 
answer  to  the  question. 

Field  notes,  December  30th,  1873,  in  this  case,  uses  tlie 
following  language  :  ''  Agreeably  to  your  instructions,  both 
written  and  verbal,"  «&;c.,  &c.,  from  which  it  would  appear 
that  he  had  written  instructions. 

As  to  the  verbal  instructions,  after  he  had  been  appointed 
to  make  the  survey  some  time,  he  came  to  the  office  of  the 
U.  S.  Surveyor-General  for  additional  instructions.  He  was 
in  doubt  as  to  including  within  the  survey  the  marsh  land 
bordering  upon  the  grant  or  rancho.  General  llardenburgh 
called  in  the  attorneys  in  the  case,  Messrs.  Brooks  and 
Sharp ;  and  Mr.  Ransom  was  present,  Mr.  Hopkins,  the 
Surveyor-General,  and,  I  think,  Mr.  A^alentine;  the  at- 
torneys referred  to  made  their  arguments  before  General 
Hardenburgh,  sitting  in  his  room,  and  after  hearing  their 
argument,  he  directed  Mr.  Ransom  to  include  the  marsh 
land.  Whether  those  instructions  were  in  writing,  I  do  not 
know. 

Q.  7.  Please  continue  anj^  further  statements,  if  any  you 
have  to  make,  as  regards  the  general  instructions  to  this 
office,  under  which  this  or  other  similar  grants  have  been 
located.  A.  In  making  a  survey  of  a  grant,  the  office  is 
governed  by  the  decree  of  confirmation  ;  instructions  to  the 
deputy,  directing  him  to  make  the  survey,  are  prepared  in 
duplicate,  embodying  the  substance  of  the  decree  of  con- 
firmation ;  one  copy  is  delivered  to  the  Deputy,  with  the 
other  papers  procured  from  the  archives — copy  of  diseiio, 
grant,  &c. — the  other  is  retained  among  the  papers  belong- 
ing to  that  Cdse,  in  the  office.  In  making  a  survey  in 
accordance  with  a  decision  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior, 
or  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  a  copy  of  the 
decision  ordering  a  re-survey  is  furnished  the  Deputy,  with 
the  necessary  papers  from  the  archives  to  enable  him  to 
(arry  out  the  order  of  the  department. 

J.  A.  ROBmsoisr. 

Adjourned  till  10  o'clock  Monday  morning,  April  3d. 


April  3d,  1876. 
Met  pursuant  to  adjournment 

Geo.  F.  Allardt  recalled  by  S.  R.  Throckmorton. 
Q.  1.     Exhibit  S.  R.  T.  No.     is  here  shown  witness,  be- 
ing the  plat  and  field  notes  of  survey,  made  by  G.  F.  Allardt 


^36      . 

arid  referred  to  in  the  deed,  from  T.  B.  Deft'ebach,  Ine;5 
Read  et  al.,  signed  "  Inez  Mead  Deffebach."  Are  you  the  per- 
son who  made  the  survey  and  plat  attached  to  the  survey, 
as  set  forth  in  said  Exhibit?     A.     lam. 

Q.  2.  For  whom  did  you  make  the  survey  ?  A.  I'or  S. 
E.  Throckmorton. 

Q.  3.     When  ?     A.     January  7th,  1871. 

Q.  4.  AVere  any  of  the  lines,  as  represented  on  the  plat 
in  said  Exhibit,  run  by  you,  at  the  time  referred  to,  for  the 
purpose  of  segregating  a  tract  of  land  embraced  in  said 
survey  so  run  by  you,  with  reference  to  the  line  marked  on 
*' Kansom-Allardt,"  official  survey  of  the  Rancho  of  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio,  as  the  western  boundary  of  said  rancho  ? 
A.     They  were  not. 

Q.  5.  "^Did  any  of  the  lines  run  by  you  in  making  said 
survey  conform  to  or  have  any  reference  to  a  trial  line  run 
bv  Mathewson,  from  the  solar  to  the  Hojon,  in  1868  ?  A. 
K^one  whatever. 

Q.  6,  Please  to  look  at  the  letter  here  shown  you,  marked 
"Exhibit  Solar  Ko.  4,"  and  state  whether  said  Exhibit 
are  the  instructions  under  which  you  made  a  survey  of  the 
so-called  western  line  of  the  "  Ransom-Allardt "  official 
survey  of  the  Rancho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio.  A.  The 
instructions  contained  in  said  Exhibit,  as  I  understood  tliem, 
when  making  the  survey,  required  me  to  ascertain  the  exact 
course  and  distance  from  the  laurel  marked  "P.  Q.  99,"  to 
the  post  marked  ''  C.  M.  P.  181,"  being  the  598th,  or  last 
course  of  said  Ransom's  official  field  notes  of  said  rancho; 
this  I  did,  and  made  return  to  the  Surveyor-General  accord- 
ingly. 

Q.  7.  Did  you  have  any  discretion,  in  locating  said  line, 
or  establishing  the  western  boundary  of  the  Rancho  of  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio,  according  to  your  own  judgment,  and 
from  the  papers  of  juridical  possession  of  said  rancho,  on 
that  occasion  ?  A.  I  had  no  discretion  in  the  matter — for 
the  reason,  that  said  ^vestern  boundary  had  already  been 
determined  by  Deputy  Ransom,  he  having  fixed  the  begin- 
ning and  end  of  said  line. 

Q.  8.  Are  there  any  objects  of  geography  or  topography, 
which  indicate  a  natural  boundary  on  that  line,  referred  to 
in  your  last  answer,  or  is  said  line  an  arbitrary  one?  A. 
The  line  is  an  arbitrary  one,  between  two  fixed  points,  and 
follows  no  notable  natural  objects,  streams  or  ridges. 

Q.  9.  Did  you  make  the  subdivisional  survey  of  the  land 
lying  west  of  said  so  called  western  boundary  line,  ds  repre- 


287 

rented  on  the  official  Tp.  plat  of  T.  1  K,  R.  6  W.,  and  if  so, 
when  ?     A.     I  did,  on  June  2d,  1874. 

Q.  10.  'Was  that  before  or  after  yon  ran  the  so  called 
western  boundary  of  the  Rancho  of  "  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio,"  referred  to  in  your  preceding  answer  ?  A.  I 
ran  said  western  boundary  first,  and  subsequently  I  ran  thi^ 
said  subdivision  lines,  and  connected  them  with  said  western 
boundarj' — the  western  boundary,  and  the  subdivision  lines 
were  run  while  I  was  in  the  field  on  the  same  occasion — and 
all  completed  in  two  davs  ;  that  is,  on  the  2d  and  3d  of  June, 
1874. 

Q.  11.  Was  S.  R.  Throckmorton  present  on  that  occa- 
sion, or  did  he  give  any  instructions  or  make  any  sugges- 
tions, while  you  were  making  the  survey  of  the  so-called 
western  boundary  line,  as  to  its  location?  A.  He  was  not 
present,  nor  did  he  offer  any  suggestions  or  instructions 
prior  thereto  concerning  the  said  survey. 

Q.  12,  Where  did  you  stop  while  you  w^ere  making  said 
survey?  A.  I  and  my  party  boarded  and  lodged  at  the 
house  of  Dr.  J.  J.  Gushing. 

Q.  13.  Do  you  remember  running  the  northern  line  of 
the  tract  surveyed  for  Throckmorton,  on  January  7th,  1871, 
concerning  which  you  have  testified  to-day?     A.  I  do. 

Q.  14.  At  the  time  of  making  the  survey  of  said  north- 
ern line,  marked  ^' courses  3  and  4,"  was  there  any  fence 
near  the  line  of  either  of  those  courses,  marking  a  southern 
boundary  of  the  adjoining  tract  in  that  direction?  A. 
There  was  a  fence  along  the  last  half  of  the  4th  course, 
running  parallel  to  said  course,  and  a  few  finks  north  of  it; 
the  fence  was  the  southern  boundary  of  a  ploughed  field. 

Q.  15.  Ex.  "No.  4  J.  A.  R."  being  shown  to  witness, 
he  is  asked:  "At  or  about  the  time  referred  to  in  said  Ex- 
hibit, on  the  trial  of  the  cause  of  Bolton  vs.  Van  Reynegom, 
in  the  U.  S.  Circuit  Court  in  this  city,  were  not  the  surveys 
you  made  for  S.  R.  Throckmorton,  and  the  testimony  given 
by  you  supporting  the  same,  made  and  given  in  reference 
^oleli/  to  the  boundary  line  between  the'  Saucelito  and  Corte 
de  Madera  del  Presidio  ranchos? 

Sol.  A.  Sharp  objects  on  the  ground  that  the  Exhibit  itself 
is  the  best  evidence. 

A.  The  surveys  which  I  made  at  the  time  for  Mr.  Throck- 
morton, was  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  boundary 
between  Throckmorton  and  his  neighbor  Defiebach,  along 
the  Arroyo  Corte  de  Madera  del  Presidio,  and  were  merelj 
a  re-survey  of  lines  previously  run    by  Deputy  Mathewson, 


238 

m  .snrveying  the  raneho  of  "  Corie  de  Madei-a  del  Presidio/'" 
Q.  16.  Did  the  surveys  then  made,  or  the  testimony 
given  by  yon  in  connection  with  said  surveys,  have  any  re- 
lation to  the  establishment  of  the  so-called  western  bound- 
ary of  the  rancho  of  Corte  de  Madera  del  Presidio,  a& 
marked  on  the  "  Kansom-Allardt  "  map?  A,  I  made  no 
survey  at  the  time  of  said  western  boundary,  and  my  testi- 
mony, as  I  understand  it,  had  reference  to  the  initial  point 
oF  said  western  boundary  only,  namely,  the  '^ solar." 

G.  F.  ALLARDT. 

Adjourned  till  to-morrow  morning  at  10^  o'clock. 


Met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 


April  4th,  1876. 


John  Borotra,  called  and  sworn  on  helialf  of  8.  R. 
Throckmorton. 

Q.  1.  State  your  name,  age,  occupation  and  place  of  res- 
idence. A.  My  name  is  as  stated  ;  37  years  ot  age  ;  occu- 
pation, "  ranchero." 

Q.  2.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  tract  of  land,  now 
claimed  by  S.  R.  Throckmorton  as  a  part  of  the  rancno  of 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  lying  east  and  n(>rth  of  a  por- 
tion of  the  arroyo  of  Corte  Madera  del  Pi'osidio.     A.  I  am. 

Q.  3.  How  long  have  you  been  acquainted  with  said 
place?     A.  About  ten  years,  more  or  less. 

Q.  4i  Were  you  present  when  the  northern  line  of  said 
tract  was  surveyed  by  G.  F.  Allardt,  in  187i  ;  and  if  so, 
what  part,  if  any^  did  you  take  in  making  the  survey  of 
said  line  ?     A.  I  was  present,  and  carried  the  chain. 

Q.  5.  While  said  line^was  being  run  was  ^[rs.  King,  or 
any  of  the  members  of  her  family,  present  ?  A.  Mr.  King, 
her  son,  was  present. 

Q.  6.  Did  he  point  out  or  designate  any  of  the  bounda- 
ries of  the  land  claimed  by  his  mother?  if  so,  state  the 
boundaries.  A.  He  pointed  out  a  stake  on  the  top  of  a  hill, 
and  a  redwood  sapling  at  the  other  end,  on  the  Inink  of  the 
Arroyo  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  whi^-li  fornuHl  the  line. 

Q.  7;  Was  the  survey  then  made  in  accordance  with  the 
boundaries  which  he  then  pointed  out?     A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  8;  Diagram  Exhibit  Iso.  15  (plat  and  iield  notes  of 
survey  made  by  G.  F.  Allardt,  January  7th,  1(S71,  etc.)  is 
here  shown  witness,  and  he  is  asked  to  point  out  on  said 


239 

map  the  boundaries  pointed  out  by  Mr.  King,  according  to 
which  the  survey  was  made.  (Witness  points  out  Post  A  ; 
from  point  A  to  redwood  stump  "  W.") 

Q.  9.  Since  the  survey  so  made,  has  there  been  a  fence 
made  on  that  line;  and  if  so,  by  whom  ?  A.  Yes,  sir;  a 
fence  made  by  myself,  and  a  man  that  I  had  to  help  me. 

Q.  Was  Mrs.  King,  or  any  of  her  family,  present,  when 
that  fence  was  made  't  A.  Yes,  all  of  King's  family  were 
present. 

Q.  10.  Was  Mrs.  King  satisfied  with  the  location  of  the 
fence  as  you  located  it,  on  the  line  surveyed  by  Allardt.  A. 
She  was,  as  far  as  I  know;  she  never  objected  to  it. 

Q.  11.  Have  you  been  in  occupation  of  the  land  south 
of  the  fence  since  you  built  the  fence  ?     A.  I  have. 

Q.  12.     Are  you  in  occupation  of  it  now  ?     A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  13.  Under  whom  are  you  now  occupyins^  it  ?  A.  Mr. 
Throckmorton.  JOHN  B^OROTRA. 

J.  H.  Wilder,  called  and  sworn  on  behalf  of  S.  R.  Throck- 
morton, says : 

That  he  resides  in  San  Francisco;  occupation,  Surveyor 
and  Civil  Engineer  and  Chief-Draftsman  of  the  Office  of  the 
U.  S.  Surveyor-General,  and  has  been  so  since  1859. 

Q.  1.  Official  Tp.  plat,  of  Tp.  1  K,  R.  6  W.,  is  here 
show^n  witness,  and  question  asked,  when  was  the  sub- 
divisional  designation,  by  lots  and  otherwise,  made  of 
sections  28  and  29  ?     A.  In  l^ovember,  1874. 

J.  H.  WILDER. 

Adjourned  till  10 J  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 


April  5th,  1876. 

Case  called. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  now  offer,  by  certified  copy,  the  original 
complaint  of  James  C.  Bolton,  in  the  case  of  James  C. 
Bolton  vs.  J.  L.  Van  Reynegom,  in  the  U.  S.  Circuit  Court 
for  the  District  of  California,  for  purpose  of  explaining  more 
fully,  and  being  supplemental  to  Ex.  ^o.  1,  as  offered  by  J. 
B.  Howard  in  this  case,  and  stamped  Surveyor-General's 
Office,  March  24th,  1876,  and  which  last  Exhibit  is  marked 
Mullen  &  Hyde,  Ex.^  "D.  E.  F.,"  April  5th,  1876. 

Peter  Gardner  objects,  as  immaterial,  irrelevant  and  in- 
competent. 

Also,  by  certified  copy,  the  answer  in  said  case  of  one  of 
the  defendants,  to-wit:  Philip  Ray,  tenant  of  Samuel  R. 


240 

Throckmorton,  which  Exhibit  is  marked  Mullen  &  Hyde, 
"G.  II.  I./'  April  5th,  1876. 

Mullen  k  Hyde  now  ofter  in  evidence  diagram  marked 
Mullen  &  Hyde's  Exhibit,  April  4th,  1876,  marked  '<0.K'^ 

Exhibit  oibjected  to  by  Sol.  A.  Sharp. 

B.  S.  Brooks  also  reserves  objection. 

Also,  by  certi tied  copy,  the  testimony  of  Eusebio  Galindo, 
James  T.  Stratton  and  Juan  Read,  as  given  by  said  p^arties 
in  said  case  so  entitled,  and  which  Exhibit  is  marked  Mul- 
len &  Hyde  "  A.  B.  C,"  April  5th,  1876. 

Peter  Gardner  objects,  as  immaterial,  irrelevant  and 
incompetent. 

Also,  by  certified  copy,  map  entitled  map  of  the  Rancho 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  according  to  the  original  diseiio 
and  juridical  measurement  granted  to  Juan  Read  ;  scale,  20 
chains  to  1  inch  ;  C.  C.  Tracy,  Surveyor  and  Marker.  Ex- 
hibit 1^0.  2,  to  Tracy's  deposition  in  said  case,  and  which 
certified  copv  will  be  marked  Exhibit  L.  M.  N.,  Mullen  & 
Hyde,  Aprir5th,  1876. 

Also  motion  of  Mullen  &  Hyde  to  dismiss  all  proceedings 
in  the  case  for  reasons  herein  stated,  and  marked  Mullen  & 
Hyde,  Ex.  0.  P.  Q.,  Apnl  5th,  1876. 

Also  by  certi  tied  copy  various  papers  pertaining  to  claim 
of  land  i  north  6  west,  M.  D.  M.,  as  certified  by  Jas.  T. 
Stratton,  Julv  20,  1875,  and  marked  Ex.  Mullen  &  Hyde, 
K.,  April  5th,  1876. 

Also  letter  of  Mullen  &  Hyde  to  S.  I.  Burdett,  Com'r  G. 
L.  ().,  marked  Mullen  &  Hyde,  Ex.  R.  S.  T.,  April  5th,  1876. 

Also  by  certitied  copy  of  map  attached  to  the  deposition 
of  Wm.  E.  Hartnell,  in  case  No.  104  of  the  late  Board  of 
Land  Commissioners,  and  marked  Exhibit,  Mullen  &  Hvde, 
W.  y.  W.,  April  5th,  1876. 

Also  the  original  instructions,  by  certified  copy,  of  Willis 
Drummond,  Commissioner,  to  J.  R.  Hardenburgh,  U.  S. 
Surveyor-General  for  California,  of  date  February  5th,  18  J2, 
and  which  is  marked  Mullen  &  Hyde,  A.  B,  C,  April  5th, 
1876. 

Counsel  for  S.  R.  Throckmorton  here  offers  Ex.  S.  R.  T. 
No.  18,  certitied  copy  of  instructions  to  Leander  Ransom  to 
make  survey  of  Rancho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  dated 
July  1873,  according  to  certain  lines  described  in  said 
instructions. 

Also  "  Ex.  S.  R.  T.,No.  19,"  certified  copy  of  instructions 
to  G.  F.  Allardt,  to  run  a  certain  line,  on  the  Rancho  "Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio,"  dated  May  8th,  1874, 


241 

Also  "  Ex.  S.  R.  T.  ^o.  20,"  to  accompany  S.  R.  T.  ^V 
13,  being  certified  copy  of  power  of  attorney  from  T.  B. 
Valentine  to  S.  D.  Valentine,  dated  April  28th,  1870. 

T.  B.    Valentine  re-called  b)j  Mr.  Throcknioriuv. 

Q.  1.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  heirs  of  John  Road, 
deceased;  if  so,  please  state  who  they  are.  A.  I  am.  Tliey 
are  John  J.  Read,  Ililarita,  the  wife  of  Dr.  Lyford,  and 
Inez,  the  wife  of  Mr.  Thos.  B.  Detiebach;  I  think  that  the 
said  Ililarita  was  married  subsequent  to  the  year  186;). 

Q.  2.  Are  you  acquainted  with  Maria  Garcia  de  Boyle? 
A.  I  am.  She  is  a  half  sister  of  John,  Hilarita,  and  Inez 
Read,  and  the  wife  of  Hugh  A.  Boyle.  She  is  of  the  same 
mother,  but  not  of  the  same  father  as  John,  Ililarita,  and 
Inez. 

T.  B.  VALEXTIXK 

Peter  Gardner  being  re-called  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Throck- 
morton, te.stitied  as  follows : 

Q.  1,  Are  3^ou  acquainted  with  the  heirs  of  John  Read; 
if  so  state  who  they  are.  A.  I  am.  They  are  John  J.  Read, 
Ililarita  Read,  and  Inez  Read  ;  Ililarita  being  married  to 
Dr.  Lyford,  and  Inez  being  married  to  T.  B.  Deffebach. 

Q.  2.  State  if  you  know  when  Inez  and  Ililarita  were 
married.     A.  I  do  not  recollect  the  time. 

Q.  Do  you  know  if  Hilarita  Read  was  married  prior  to 
or  subsequent  to  May  24th,  1869?  A.  I  think  it  was  after 
that  date. 

Q.  8.  State  if  you  know  who  Maria  Garcia  de  Boyle  is. 
A.  She  is  a  half  sister  to  the  other  three  children  before 
mentioned,  by  the  same  mother,  and  Hugh  A.  Boyle  is  her 
husband. 

PETER  GARDNER. 

Mr.  Shanklin,  by  certified  copy,  offers  a  map  entitled 
""Plat  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  finally  con- 
firmed to  the  heirs  of  John  Read,  surveyed  under  instruc- 
tions of  the  U".  S.  Sur.-Gen'l,  by  Leander  Ransom,  Deputy 

Surveyor,  in  Oct.,  1873,  containing acres.  Var.  16  ^ 

30^  East.  Scale  40  chains  to  the  inch,"  being  the  map  at- 
tached, to  the  field  notes  of  the  final  survey  of  the  Rancho 
El  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  finally  confirmed  to  the  heirs 
of  John  Read,  surveyed,  compiled,  and  arranged  under  in- 
structions  from  the    U.  S.  Survivor-General,   by  Leander 


242 

Kansoni,  Deputy  Surveyor,  Xov.  and  Dee.,  1873,  eontaiiiing' 

acres,  concluding  with  the  affidavit  of  G.  F.  Allardt^ 

dated  January  27,  1874,  and  Leander  Ransom,  same  date;, 
said  map  here  ottered  being  made  to  accompany  the  testi- 
mony of  Wm.  J.  Lewis,  marked  S.  li.  T.  l^o.  21. 

Also,  Ex.  22  S.  E.  T.,  a  scale  of  cordeles  conforming  to  40 
chains  to  the  inch. 

Also  Ex.  'No.  23,  S.  R.  T.,  certified  copy  of  the  map  an- 
nexed to  deposition  of  Wm.  Hartnell,  and  referred  to  in 
objections  of  S.  R.  Throckmorton,  filed  Mav  26th,  1875,  be- 
ing also  Ex.  Mullen  &  Hyde,  U.  V.  W.,  April  5th,  1870. 

Here  adjourned  until  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  to-morrow. 


Thursday,  April  6th,  1876. 

Met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  hereby  give  notice  that  they  will  file,  by 
certified  copy,  as  soon  as  the  same  can  be  prepared  from  the 
original  records,  a  copy  of  the  memoir,  or  exposition,  ad- 
dressed, in  1837,  by  General  Vallejo,  to  the  departmental 
authorities,  particularly  remarking  the  importance  of  Point 
Tiburon  for  the  defence  of  the  harbor  of  San  Francisco, 
and  to  which  reference  is  made  on  pages  393  and  394  of 
Hottrnan's  Land  Reports. 

R.  C.  Hopkins  is  asked  to  give  the  date  of  the  San  Rafael 
map,  filed  in  the  case  as  Exhibit  S.  R.  T.  No.  8,  whereupon 
he  states  that  the  original  records  in  relation  thereto  show 
that  the  survey  of  the  common  lands  of  the  Pueblo  of  San 
Rafael  was  made  by  Ignacio  Martinez  on  the  1st  of  October, 
1834  ;  that  on  the  9th  of  November,  1834,  the  field  notes  of 
the  survey  were  sent  to  Governor  Figuerra  for  his  approval 
thereof;  that  on  the  20th  of  November,  1834,  Figuerra 
wrote  to  Martinez  that  because  he  had  not  shown  the  con- 
figuration of  the  tract  surveyed,  etc.,  the  approval  of  the 
survey  was  suspended  ;  and  finally,  that  on  the  21st  of  Sep- 
tember, 1835,  Ignacio  Martinez  wrote  to  the  Governor,  for- 
warding the  map  or  diseno  of  the  lands  surveyed,  which 
map  now  forms  a  part  of  the  record  in  relation  to  the  mat- 
ter. R.  C.  HOPKINS. 

Q.  1.  Thos.  B.  Valentine,  called  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  in 
connection  with  Exhibit  filed  April  5th,  1876,  and  marked 
*' L,  M,  N,''  and  is  asked  the  question  whether  he  recog- 
nizes said  Exhibit  as  used  in  connection  with  Tracy's  depo- 


243 

sition,  in  the  ease  of  Bolton  vs.  Van  Heynegom,  et  at.  A.  I 
do  not  recollect  anything  about  it ;  it  does  not  seem  to  be  a 
copy  of  the  Tracy  map. 

Q.  2.  Please  now  look  at  the  original  from  which  this 
was  traced,  and  state  whether  you  recognize  it  as  a  map 
that  you  have  seen  before  to-day,  and  which  was  used  on  the 
trial  of  said  case.  A.  I  don't  recollect  this  map  as  being 
used  on  the  trial  of  the  case  referred  to. 

Adjourned  till  10 J  o'clock  to-morrow  a.  m.,  April  7th, 
1876. 


April  7th,  1876. 

Met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  now  offer  the  deposition  of  Chas.  C. 
Tracy,  in  the  case  of  James  Clinton  Bolton  vs.  Jas.  L. 
Van  Reynegom,  et  al.,  together  with  the  Exhibit  No.  2, 
marked  Exhibit  2,  to  Tracy's  deposition  before  the  U.  S. 
Circuit  Court  for  the  District  of  California,  and  which  Ex- 
hibit is  marked  "Mullen  &  Hyde,  D.  E.  F.,  April  7th, 
1876,"  said  map  being  referred  to  as  part  of  said  deposition, 
and  filed  therewith,  and  spoken  of  therein,  in  words  as 
follows:  "Exhibit  Ko.  2  to  Deposition  of  Tracy." 

B.  S.  Brooks  and  Sol.  A.  Sharp  reserve  objections  to  fore- 
going ofter. 

R.  C.  Hopkins  called  by  Mullen  &  Hyde. 

Sharp  objects  to  any  new  testimony  being  introduced  at 
this  stage  of  the  proceedings. 

B.  S.  Brooks  makes  same  objection. 

Surveyor-General  rules  that  the  testimony  sought  to  be 
introduced  by  Capt.  Mullen  is  alleged  by  him  to  relate  to 
new  matter,  and  that  that  being  the  case,  the  office  requires 
of  him  an  affidavit  setting  forth  the  fact. 

Q.  1.  Please  look  at  the  original  record  of  the  juridical 
possession  of  the  Rancho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  and 
state  whether  the  word  "  Holon,"  therein  contained  in  line 
23,  on  page  1  thereof,  appears  to  have  been  written  in  a 
space  left  blank  at  the  date  of  the  fij-st  writing  of  the 
certificate  or  paper,  or  body  thereof.  A.  I  think  that  the 
word  "  Holon  "  was  written  in  a  space  left  for  that  purpose, 
when  the  body  of  the  instrument  was  written. 

Q.  2.  Is  said  word  Holon  written  with  the  same  ink, 
the  same  pen,  and  same  handwriting,  as  in  the  body  of  said 
instrument  ?  A.  I  think  it  is  written  with  different  ink, 
but  in  the  same  handwriting  as  the  body  of  the  instrument. 
As  to  the  pen,  I  cannot  tell. 


244 

.    Objections  to  foregoing  and  subsequent  questions  in  detail 
reserved  by  B.  8.  Brooks  and  Sol.  A.  Sbarp. 

Q.  3.  I  ask  the  same  question  with  reference  to  word 
San  Pablo,  on  the  same  page  below.  A.  I  think  it  is  writ- 
ten with  the  same  ink  as  the  word  Holon  on  the  same  page, 
and  that  was  written  in  a  space  left  for. that  purpose. 

Q.  4.  I  ask  the  same  question  with  reference  to  the 
word  "Palmas,"  "Animas,"  and  "San  Pablo,"  in  page  5  of 
said  original  instrument  A.  I  make  the  same  answer  in 
relation  to  those  words;  that  is,  that  they  w^ere  written  in 
spaces  left  and  in  different  ink  from  the  body  of  the  instru- 
ment. 

Q.  5.  I  ask  the  same  question  in  reference  to  the  words 
*''Yndejena  Neri "  on  page  9  of  said  record,  and  the  same 
word  on  page  11.  A.  The  words  "  Yndejena  Neri,"  on  page 
9  appear  to  have  been  written  in  a  space,  and  in  ditterent 
ink  from  the  body  of  the  instrument,  and  the  word  "Neri" 
on  page  11  appears  to  have  been  written  in  a  space  and  in 
different  ink. 

Q.  6.  Is  there  any  evidence  of  any  kind  in  this  office,  to 
show  whether  the  original  record  of  juridical  possession  of 
the  Rancho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  remained  in  the 
possession  of  the  heirs  of  the  claimant  liead  and  his  heirs, 
after  the  date  thereof?     A.     There  is  none. 

Q.  7.  Have  you  reason  to  suppose  that  said  record  did 
remain  in  the  possession  of  Juan  Read  and  his  heirs  after  the 
(bite  thereof?  A.  I  suppose  it  did  ;  since  it  was  customary 
to  give  the  parties  receiving  juridical  possession,  a  copy  of  the 
proceedings  had  in  making  the  measurements  and  giving 
possession. 

Q.  8.  Do  the  official  records  in  the  archives  show  any 
other  record  of  juridical  possession  of  said  rancho  ?  A.  They 
do  not. 

Q^.  9.  Do  not  the  official  reports  on  the  mission  boun- 
daries of  record  in  this  office  show  that  the  land  known  as 
Rinconada  del  Tiburon  was  claimed  and  occupied  by  the 
Mission  of  San  Rafael?  A.  Anciently,  I  think  that  the 
Mission  of  San  Rafael  claimed,  and  perhaps  occupied  by 
stock,  a  very  large  extent  of  countr}^  north  of  and  bounding 
on  the  Bay  of  San  Francisco  ;  I  do  not  think,  however,  that 
the  lands'claimed  and  occupied  by  the  Mission  of  San  Rafael 
ever  had  any  fixed  boundaries — until  an  attempt  was  made 
to  secularize  the  mission  by  converting  it  into  an  Indian 
pueblo,  in  September,  18 B5. 

Q.  10.     Would   such   records  be   likely  to  mis-state  or 


245 

mistake  the  facts,  and  do  they  vary  according  to  subsequent 
•events  ?     A.     I  think  not. 

Q.  11.  What  do  you  understand  the  words  "Rinconada 
del  Tiburon"  to  mean,  as  used  in  the  report  on  the  bonn- 
diries  of  the  lands  of  the  Mission  of  San  Rafael  of  the  date 
ot*  October  1st,  1834,  as  shown  by  the  archives  of  this  office^ 
and  referred  to  in  this  case  ?  A,  The  Spanish  word  "  Rw- 
aon^''  means  "inside  corner,"  Rinconada,  as  used  by  Califor- 
nians,  means  a  large  corner  or  elbow — hence  the  ex[)ression 
Rjnconada  defTiburon  means  the  tract  of  land  embraced 
by  the  lines  forming  the  point  or  peninsula  of  Tiburon. 

Q.  12.  lias  your  attention  been  heretofore  attracted  to 
the  matters  contained  in  qnestious  1,  2,  3,  4  and  5,  on  pages 
672  and  678  of  this  record  ?     A.    It  has. 

Q.  13.  Have  you  at  anj-  time,  heretofore,  given  it  as 
your  opinion,  in  any  manner,  to  any  persons  whomsoever, 
that  the  lands  known  as  the  Rinconada  del  Tiburon  did  not 
constitute  a  portion  of  the  rancho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Pre- 
sidio, and  of  which  juridical  measurement  was  made  and 
^iven,  as  set  forth  in  the  records  of  this  case  ?  A.  I  never 
have,  that  I  remember  of. 

Q.  14.  Have  you  not  heretofore  called  the  attention  of 
•any  party  whomsoever  to  the  above  subject  matters,  lead- 
ing to  the  conclusion  that  said  Rinconada  del  Tiburon  did 
wot  constitute  a  portion  of  the  rancho  of  "  Corte  Madera 
<lel  Presidio?"  A.  Beyond  giving  testimony  in  this  case 
before  the  courts,  and  in  making  translations  of  the  original 
title  papers  in  the  case,  I  do  not  recollect  that  my  attention 
has  been  called  to  this  case,  or  that  I  have  called  the  atten- 
tion of  any  one  voluntarily  or  specially  to  the  matter  ;  I  do 
remember,  however,  that  some  5  or  6  years  since  a  gentle- 
man, who  at  that  time  was  stopping  at  my  house,  was  em- 
ployed by  Mr.  Gardner  in  this  case;  I  think  that  I  trans- 
lated for  him  the  original  title  papers;  I  do  not  remember 
whether  I  made  written  or  verbat  translations  of  the  same  ; 
I  remember  that  in  examining  the  original  papers,  he  ob- 
served that  spaces  had  been  left  for  certain  names,  and  that 
these  names  were  written  in  with  different  ink  ;  what  his 
theory  of  the  case  was  I  cannot  now  remember,  nor  do  I 
think  I  gave  it  more  attention  than  to  translate  the  papers 
4ind  make  the  required  explanations.     He  is  now  dead, 

Q.  15.  Have  you  not  heretofore  furnished,  to  any  person 
whomsoever,  data  relative  to  said  matters  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  that  said  Rinconada  del  Tiburon  did  not  constitute 
41  part  of  the  rancho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  of  which 


246 

Jiii'idica]  measurement  was  made  as  set  forth  in  this  case  ? 
A.  I  cannot  now  remember  of  having  furnished  data  to  any- 
One  for  that  purpose,  nor  do  I  remember  of  having  giveii 
anv  opinion  in  the  matter ;  I  have  from  time  to  time  given 
eopies  and  translations  of  papers  from  the  archives  ;  how- 
such  papers  may  have  been  used  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  16.  Then  do  you  understand  that  the  theory  that  the 
Rinconada  del  Tiburon  did  not  canstitute  a  portion  of  the 
rancho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  has  been  entertained 
by  parties  entirely  outside  of  this  case,  and  for  a  period  of 
at  least  live  or  six  years  prior  to  this  date,  and  not  including 
any  parties  to  this  controversy,  and  at  a  date  subsequent  to 
the  rejection  of  the  Limentour  claim  thereto  ?  A.  I  cannot 
say.  li.  C.  HOPKINS. 

Adjourned  till  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  April  10th. 


Monday,  April   10th,  1876. 

Met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

B.  S.  Brooks  offers  the  following  Exhibits,  to  wit : 

Field  notes  of  survey  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio,  finally  confirmed  to  heirs  of  Juan  Read,  surveyed, 
compiled  and  arranged,  under  instructions  of  U.  S.  Surveyor- 
General,  by  Leander  Ransom,  Dep.  Surveyor,  in  September 
and  October,  1873,  with  map  attached  thereto. 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde  ;  grounds  of  objection  re- 
served. 

B.  S.  Brooks,  for  claimants,  oft'ers  in  evidence  certified 
copy  of  deed  from  James  C.  Bolton  to  Thos.  B.  Valentine, 
dated  July  25th,  1868,  marked  T.  B.  V.  Eo.  6. 

Also  a  deed  from  John  J.  Read,  Hillaria  M.  Read,  Thos. 
B.  i)etfebach,  and  Inez  Deffebach,  his  wife,  to  James  C. 
Bolton,  dated  August  12th,  1865,  marked  "  Ex.  T.  B.  V. 
Ko.  7." 

Also  a  certified  copy  of  the  testimony  of  Eusebio  Galindo, 
taken  in  the  case  of  Bolton  vs.  Van  Reynegom,  as  a  part  of 
the  record  of  testimony  in  said  case,  marked  Ex.  T.  B.  V. 
Ko.  8. 

J.  B.  Howard  objects  as  to  the  not  the  best  evidence  of 
juridical  possession,  and  U.  S.  is  deprived  of  the  benefit  of 
cross-examining  said  witnesses,  who  are  not  shown  to  be 
dead  or  without  the  State. 

Peter  Gardner  makes  same  objection,  because  the  wit- 
nesses should  be  produced,  that  they  may  be  cross-exam- 
ined. 


247 

Mullen  &  Hyde  object  for  the  reasons  as  above  stated,  and 
second,  because  it  is  an  ex-parie  deposition,  so  far  as  this 
case  is  concerned,  and  therefore  violates  the  instructions  of 
the  Hon.  Com'r  General  Land  Office  of  the  13th  day  of 
August,  1872. 

Third,  Because  it  does  not  bear  internal  evidence  of  ever 
having  been  used  as  evidence  in  said  case  before  said  Court, 
and  the  endorsement  in  words  as  follows :  *'  Testimony  of 
Eusebio  Galindo,  taken  in  Jas.  L.  Bolton  r^.  Jno.  L.  Van 
Reynegom,  U.  S.  District  Court,"  is  in  the  hand-writing  of 
R.  C.  Hopkins,  and  but  recently  written. 

Fourth,  Because  said  Exhibit  does  not  show  any  cross- 
examination,  or  that  the  adverse  parties  were  cited  to  ap- 
pear at  the  time  and  place  of  taking  said  deposition ;  and 
ruling  of  Surveyor-General  asked  tor  to  exclude  said  depo- 
sition as  evidence  in  this  case. 

Surveyor-General  rules  as  follows  : 

Also,  a  certified  copy  of  the  testimony  of  Jose  de  la  Cruz 
Sanchez,  taken  in  the  case  of  Bojton  vs.  Van  Reynegom, 
and  Bolton  vs.  Kasha w,  in  the  U.  S.  Circuit  Court,  marked 
"Ex.  T.  B.  V.  No.  9." 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  as  incompetent  for  the 
purposes  of  this  case,  and  because  said  Sanchez  is  repre- 
sented as  being  the  same  Sanchez  who  has  already  given  a 
deposition  some  time  in  1873,  and  filed  in  this  case,  also  ex- 
parte,  and  which  last  deposition  has  mysteriously  disappeared; 
and  also  because  it  is  understood  that  said  Sanchez  lives 
within  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco,  and  should  be 
produced  in  propria  persona,  and  should  be  produced  for  the 
purposes  of  cross-examination,  and  ruling  of  the  Surveyor- 
General  asked. 

Surveyor-General  rules  as  follows  : 

Adjourned  till  Thursday,  April  18th. 


April  18th,  1876. 
Met  pursuant  to  adjournment,  and   adjournedj  till   April 


17th  at  lOJ  o'clock 


April  17th,  187d. 
Met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Hirani  Austin  called  and  sworn  on  behalf  of  the  claimants. 
Questions  by  31r.  Sharp, 

Q.  1.  AVhat  is  your  name,  a^e,  occupation,  and  place  of 
residence?  A.  My  name  is  Iliram  Austin,  age  55  years, 
occupation  surveyor  and  civil  engineer,  and  residence  San 
Rafael,  Marin  County. 

Q.  2.  Do  you  hold  any  official  position  in  Marin  County; 
if  so,  what  official  position?  A.  I  am  acting  as  County  Sur- 
veyor of  said  county. 

Q.  3.  Bo  you  know,  and  are  you  familiar  with  the  rancho 
of  Corte  de  Madera  del  Presidio?  A.  I  do  know  it,  and 
am  familiar  with  it. 

Q.  4.  To  what  extent  and  in  what  capacity  have  you  be- 
come famihar  with  said  Rancho?  A.  I  am  thoroughly  with 
all  portions  of  said  ranch(^  and  have  been  so  in  my  capacity 
of  surveyor  and  civil  engineer. 

Q.  5.  When  did  you  last  visit  said  ranch  in  your  voca- 
tion of  surveyor  and  civil  engineer?  A*  I  visited  it  on  the 
8th  day  of  April,  1876. 

Q.  6.  Were  you  upon  that  occasion  shown  what  has  been 
represented  as  an  "old  stone  mound,"  as  referred  to  in  the 
testimony  of  G.  F.  Allardt,  during  this  investigation,  as  fol- 
lows :  "  I  was  on  the  ground  March  23d,  1876,  where  I 
found  an  old  stone  mound,  which  was  pointed  out  to  me  by 
Peter  Gardner.  For  a  description  ot  said  mound  I  quote  from 
my  field  notes  as  made  on  the  ground  on  that  day  :  Begin- 
ning at  an  old  stone  mound,  on  the  top  of  a  round,  grassy 
knoll;  the  mound  is  an  artificial  one,  about  four  feet  in 
dianieter  and  two  feet  high,  composed  of  stones  from  six 
inches  to  two  feet  long,  and  bears  evidence  of  great  age;  by 
aneroid  measurement  it  is  440  feet  above  the  tide  ;  it  is  the 
nearest  high  knoll  to  the  bay ;  there  are  no  other  loose 
stones  near  the  mound.  *  *  *  In  next  succeeding  ques- 
tion, Mr.  Allardt  continues,  "I  took  the  following  bearings, 
namely,  Tiburon  Peak  bears  S.  41^  E.;  the  extreme  east- 
erly point  at  San  Quentin  Ferry  wharf  bears  IN".  12i  ^  E.; 
the  peak  of  Tamalpais  bears  N.  78J  ^  W.;  and  California 
Cit}^  Point  bears  very  nearly  due  east  ?     A.  I  was. 

Q.  7,  By  whom  were  you  conducted  to  said  old  stone 
mound?  A.  By  Doctor  Benjamin  F.  Lyford,  the  gentle- 
man now  present. 


249 

Q.  8.  1)1(1  any  other  persons  accompany  yon  and  l)oc{or 
L}ford  on  that  occasion  ;  if  so,  who  were  they  ?  A.  Thos. 
B.  Valentine  accompanied  us,  who  was  the  only  person. 

Q.  9.  Did  you,  on  that  occasion,  have  a  copy  of  th« 
testimony  of  G.  F.  Alhirdt,  giving  courses  and  distances 
bearing  on  the  location  of  the  old  stone  mound  descrihed 
bv  Ailardt ;  also,  a  traced  copy  of  Ex.  marked  '' O.  K.," 
filed  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  April  4th,  1876  ?  A.  I  had  a  copy 
of  the  Exhibit,  and  a  copy  of  the  testimony  containing 
"Courses,  distances,  &c.,  referred  to  in  previous  questions. 

Q.  10»  Did  yon,  upon  the  ground  and  in  the  presence 
of  Doctor  B.  F.  Lyford  and  Thos.  B.  Valentine,  make 
instrumental  tests,  and  compare  said  tests  with  and  to  said 
bearings,  as  made  by  said  G.  F,  Ailardt,  in  his  testimony 
given  in  this  case?     A.  I  did. 

Q.  IL  Did  you,  upon  said  test  and  comparison,  ascer- 
tain the  stone  mound,  to  which  you  were  conducted  by 
Doctor  Lyford,  to  be  the  same  identical  stone  mound  as  indi- 
cated by  said  G.  F.  Aliardt's  testimony,  as  above  given  in 
this  case  ?  A.  I  ascertained  by  instrumental  ohservation 
that  the  mound  of  stone  to  which  I  was  conducted  occupied 
the  same  location  as  the  one  from  which  Ailardt  made  his 
observation^ 

Q.  12.  What  is  the  nature  and  general  description  of 
the  land  contiguous  to  and  adjoining  the  stone  mound  and 
grassy  knoll  referred  to  in  Aliardt's  testimony  ?  A.  Th« 
knoll  on  w^hich  the  mound  is  situated  is  without  brush  or 
timber,  and  what  would  be  considered  rocky  or  stony  soil; 
and  the  adjoining  country  slopes  to  the  nortlieast,  and  is 
quite  uneven^ 

Q.  18.  Does  this  grassy  knoll  and  the  adjoining  land 
bear  any  evidence  that  it  has  ever  been  cultivated  1  A.  It; 
does  not, 

Q.  14.  From  what  special  evidence  do  you  infer  that 
said  grassy  knoll  and  the  adjoining  land  has  never  been 
cultivated?  A,  In  the  first  place,  the  knoll  and  th^  sur- 
rounding land  is  too  steep  and  rocky  for  cultivation  by 
ploughing;  in  the  second  place,  the  rocks  and  stones  lie  in 
a  natural  position,  with  the  mossy  sides  up,  as  tliough  tliey 
had  not  been  disturbed  by  cultivation. 

Q.  15.  Did  you  find  loose  stones  in  any  quantity  upon 
this  grassy  knoll  referred  to,  in  appearance  similar  with  the 
stones  with  which  this  old  mound  was  formed  ?  A.  I  found 
ati  abundance  of  such  loose  stones  ;  there  are  not  less  thaw 
•iive  wagon  loads  within  a  radius  of  100  feet. 


250 

Q.  16.  On  this  occasion  was  jonr  attention  called  to 
witness  the  building  of  a  stone  mound  upon  said  p^rassy 
knoll,  from  loose  stones  gathered  therefrom.     A.  It  was. 

Q.  17,  By  whom  was  it  built  ?  A.  By  Doctor  Benj.  F, 
Lyford. 

Q.  18.  How  many  minutes  were  occupied  in  its  con- 
struction ?     A.  Less  than  ten  minutes,  by  the  watch. 

Q.  19.  Did  you,  as  a  civil  engineer,  carefully  inspect  the 
said  mound  (constructed  by  Doctor  Lyford)  w^ith  special  ref- 
erence as  to  its  exterior  appearance,  as  regards  the  position 
of  the  stones  therein  placed,  and  their  mossy  evidence  of 
antiquity  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  as  irrelevant  and  incom- 
petent, and  it  not  appearing  that  it  was  the  duty  of  a  civil 
eiiirineer  to  establish  the  mojoneras,  as  called  for  in  the  title 
papers  ;  nor  does  it  appear  that  it  is  the  duty  or  part  of  the 
profession  of  civil  engineers  to  build  any  mounds  of  this^ 
character  in  the  line  of  their  profession,  and  therefore  the 
judgment  of  this  witness  as  a  civil  engineer  on  this  particu- 
lar point  has  no  weight  greater  than  that  of  any  other  wit- 
ness. 

A.  I  did  carefully  examine  the  mound  constructed  by 
Doctor  Lyford. 

Q.  20.  Under  your  most  searching  scrutiny  how  did  thi* 
young  mound  compare  with  the  old  stone  mound,  as  regards 
evidence  of  its  great  age  ?  A.  It  has  the  same  ancient  ap- 
pearance in  every  respect ;  it  would  be  difficult  for  a  stranger 
to  discover  any  difference  in  appearance  between  the  two, 
with  respect  to  age. 

Q.  21.  Please  state  if  the  old  stone  mound  presents  the 
appearance  of  having  been  built  with  a  view  to  its  perma- 
nency, or  were  the  stones  placed  in  a  careless  manner,  as  if 
thrown  there  without  respect  to  position  or  durability,  as 
you  saw  it  at  the  time  referred  to  ?  A.  The  most  of  the 
stones  lie  in  a  promiscuous  manner,  without  an  appearance 
of  having  been  placed  to  mark  some  exact  specific  point. 

Cross- Examination  by  Mullen  ^  Hyde. 

Q.  22.  Did  you  find  the  bearings  and  measurements,  as 
reported  by  G.  F.  Allardt,  as  far  as  you  examined  the  same, 
to  be  correct  ?  A.  I  found  the  point  located  by  Mr.  Al- 
lardt, by  their  cross  bearings,  and  used  them  to  find  the  pile 
of  rocks. 

Q.  23.     Please  answer  the  question  asked  you.     A.  The 


251 

bearings  and  measurements  pjiven   by  Mr.  Allardt  correctly 
point  out  the  location  of  the  pile  of  rocks. 

Q.  24.  Did  you,  on  the  occasion  spoken  of,  see  any  loose 
rocks  on  the  top  of  the  knoll  on  which  the  old  mound  re- 
ferred to  is  situated  ?  A.  I  did  ;  by  the  top  of  the  knoll  I 
mean  ;  all  the  ground  within  100  feet,  or  thereabouts,  of 
the  stone  mound  referred  to. 

Q.  25.  IIow,  in  shape,  does  the  top  of  that  knoll  com- 
pare with  the  upper  end  of  an  egg  set  on  end  ?  A.  The 
top  of  the  knoll  is,  in  shape,  a  very  regular  oval. 

Q.  2G.  Had  this  mound,  when  you  saw  it,  any  well  de- 
fined shape  ;  and  if  so,  what  shape  ?  I  refer  to  the  exterior 
thereof  A.  I  think  a  line  drawn  around  the  outer  portions 
of  the  stones,  as  they  lie  on  the  ground,  would  have  the 
form  of  an  oblate  spheroid. 

Q.  27.  Did  uot  the  outer  faces  of  said  old  stone  mound, 
on  the  occasion  you  speak  of,  bear  evidence  of  having  been 
put  up  or  constructed  with  some  degree  of  care,  and  that 
the  rocks  included  within  the  said  outer  faces  were  the  ones 
that  were  thrown  in  without  any  reference  to  colocation  or 
■  care?  A.  The  west  and  south  sides  of  the  mound  show 
that  they  have  been  built  up  with  some  care ;  the  east  and 
north  sides  look  like  a  pile  of  rubbish  rock,  as  it  would 
after  being  dumped  on  the  ground  from  a  wheelbarrow. 

Q.  28.  From  said  old  stone  mound  as  a  center,  within 
what  length  of  radius  would  said  knoll  have  the  shape  of  a 
regular  oval?  A.  The  oval  extends  in  a  very  regular 
shape  for  a  distance  of  200  feet  or  more  on  nearly  all  sides 
of  the  stone  mound ;  the  stone  mound  is  not  on  the  summit 
of  the  knoll,  but  is  probably  50  feet  therefrom. 

Q.  29.  Are  you  positive,  that  within  a  radius  of  100  feet 
from  the  old  stone  mound,  as  a  center,  you  saw  lying  on 
the  ground  not  less  than  five  wagon  loads  of  loose  stones  ? 
A.  I  am  positive  that  there  is  that  amount  of  loose  stone 
within  the  radius  of  100  feet  from  the  stone  mound  as  a 
center. 

Q.  30.  Did  you  examine  said  loose  ^stones  for  the  pur- 
pose of  ascertaining  whether  they  were  carried  to  the  places 
found  within  a  recent  time,  say  about  the  last  thirty  days? 
A.  I  did  not  examine  them  with  special  reference  to  that 
point. 

Q.  31.  Did  said  rocks,  from  the  character  of  grasses 
growing  on  said  knoll,  or  other  superficial  indications,  ap- 
pear to  have  been  transported  thither  within  a  recent  pe- 
riod ?     A.  I  noticed  no  indications  of  their  being  lately 


262 

moved;  I  recollect  now  that  I  noticed  numbers  within  the 
radius  of  100  feet  from  the  stone  mound,  as  a  center,  that 
lay  with  their  mossy  sides  up. 

Q.  32.  Were^not  all  the  slopes  of  the  knoll,  upon  which 
this  old  stone  mound  is  situated,  covered  with  a  growth  of 
green  grass,  within  said  radius  of  100  feet  ?  A.  It  is  partly 
covered  with  rock,  partly  with  grass,  and  partly  bare  ground, 

Q.  33,  Had  you  ever  seen  said  old  mound  prior  to  the 
8th  of  April,  1876  ?     A.     I  am  not  positivethat  I  had. 

Q.  34.  Have  you  had  any  experience  in  judging  of  the 
age  of  stone  mounds  similar  in  appearance  to  this  old  stone 
mound  referred  to  ?  A.  I  have  had  occasion  in  retracing 
government  surveys  of  lianchos,  etc,  to  hunt  up  and  inspect 
stone  mounds,  where  they  have  been  monuments  on  govern- 
ment surveys, 

Q.  36.  If  you  were  called  upon  to  express  your  opinion 
as  to  the  age  of  this  particular  old  stone  mound,  what  great- 
est age  would  you  say  it  had  or  would  you  venture  an  opin- 
ion ?  A.  I  do  not  know  of  any  means  by  which  any  one 
could  decide  by  observation  on  the  age  of  this  pile  of  stones, 

Q.  37,  Did  you  observe  at  the  said  radius  of  100  feet 
any  indications  leading  to  show  that  either  the  rocks  or 
stones,  or  soil,  had  been  recently  disturbed?  A.  I  did  not, 
excepting  what  occurred  on  the  day  that  I  visited  the  place, 

Q.  38.  How  far  from  the  old  stone  mound  is  the  place 
situated,  where  Doctor  Lyford  built  his  ^^ young  stone  mound," 
as  by  you  narrated  ?  A.  Within  a  distance  of  less  than 
50  feet — in  an  easterly  direction  therefrom. 

Q.  39.  Was  any  of  the  stones  of  the  old  stone  mound 
Used  in  the  construction  of  the  young  stone  mound,  or  was 
said  old  stone  mound  in  any  manner  disturbed  by  any  of  the 
parties  then  present?  A.  ^one  of  the  stones  of  the  old 
mound  were  used  in  constructing  the  new  one,  and  the  old 
stone  mound  was  in  do  way  disturbed  during  my  visit  on 
that  occasion,  so  far  iis  I  know. 

Q.  40.  Did  said  old  stone  mound  bear  any  appearance- 
of  recent  disturbance  ?  A.  The  northeast  portion  of  the 
mound  has  within  a  recent  period  fallen  or  been  thrown 
outward. 

Q.  41,  From  what  place  of  rendezvous  did  you  start  on 
said  visit  to  said  mound?  A.  I  came  from  San  Rafael  to 
Mr.  Kead's  house,  from  whence  I  went  on  foot  in  company 
with  Mr.  Lyford  and  Mr.  Valentine  to  the  knoll  and  mound 
in  question,  which  is  situated  in  a  northeast  direction  at  a 
distance  of  about  one  mile  from  Mr.  Read's  house. 


253 

Q.  42.  "Who  led  tlie  way?  A.  The  gentlemen  men- 
:tioned,  who  were  in  company  with  ine. 

Q.  43.  Did  either  of  them  say  or  intimate  that  they  had 
1)een  there  before ?  A.  I  don't  recollect  what  they  said, 
but  I  understood  from  what  was  said  generally  that  they 
knew  where  the  mound  was. 

Q,  44.  Did  yon,  en  route,  mistake  any  other  mound  for 
this  particuhtr  one  that  you  were  in  question  of?  A.  I  have 
110  recollection  of  makinsr  ^^v  such  mistake;  I  did  not  look 
for  or  ex[>ect  to  find  the  mound  until  it  was  shown  me  by 
•the  gentlemen  who  accompanied  me, 

Q.  45.  Then  you  found  the  mound  in  the  manner  as  by 
you  stated,  without  tlie  wse  of  instruments  up  to  that  time  ? 
A.  I  found  that  mound  in  the  manner  stated  ;  I  then  used 
the  instrument  to  determine  as  to  wliether  it  was  the  same 
*niound  visited  and  described  by  Mr.  Allardt. 

Q.  46.  What  instrument  did  you  have  ?  A.  A  sur- 
veyor's transit  instrument, 

Q.  47.     With  a  tripod  ?     A.    Yes,  witli  a  tripod. 

Q.  48,  Did  you  make  any  measurements  of  distance? 
A.  I  did  not  test  Mr.  A31ardt^s  measurements  ;  I  made  some 
measurements. 

Q.  ,49.  What  angles  did  3'our  measure  fi'om  said  monu- 
ment or  bearings  take  ?  if  any,  please  give  the  same,  without 
using  the  memoranda  that  was  furnished  you.  A,  I  used 
the  bearings  of  Allardt,  and  found  therefrom  that  I  was  at 
the  same  stone  mound  as  described  by  him. 

Q.  50,  Did  you  see  Mr.  Read  at  Ids  house  on  this  occa- 
sion ?     A.     I  did. 

Q.  5L  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  him  on  that 
occasion  or  at  any  other  time  relative  to  that  stone  uiound  'i 
A.     I  do  not  think  that  1  did. 

Q.  51.  Did  you  leave  the  young  stone  mound  built  by 
Doctor  Lyford,  just  as  he  constructed  it  ?     A.     1  did. 

Q.  52.  llow  far  was  it  necessary  to  ti-ausport  the  stones 
to  construct  the  young  stone  mound,  constructed  by  Doctor 
Lyford  ?  A.  About  ten  feet — the  stones  of  which  this 
mound  is  constructed  range  from  a  few  inches  to  two  feet  in 
length. 

Adjourned  till  ten  o'clock  to-morrow  moniing. 


254 

Tuesday,  April  I8tlj,  1876: 

Met  pursuant  to  acljoiirnment^ 

John  J.  Read,  called  and  sworn  on  behaif  of  the  claimants. 

By  Mr.  Sharp : 

Q*  1,  What  is  yoar  name,  age,  occupation  and  place  of 
residence?  A.  My  name  is  John  J.. Read;  age  89  years;, 
occupation  farmer ;  and  residence  Marin  Cbuuty,  California; 
on  the  Rancho  Corte  Maclera  del  Presidio. 

Q.  2.  Do  yon  know  the  stone  mound  situated  upon  saitJ 
Rancho  "  Corte  Madera  dol  Presidio,"  to  which  your  atten- 
tion (upon  the  ground)  was  called  by  Doctor  R  F.  Lvford 
on  the  1st  day  of  April,  1876  ?     A.    1  do. 

Q.  3.  Please  state  what  other  ^>er&ons  accompanied  yoii 
and  Doc^;or  Lyford  on  that  occasion  ?  A.  Mr.  R.  C.  Hop- 
kins and  Mr.  llngh  A.  Boyle. 

Q.  4.  Has  yoLUr  attentioii  been  previously  called  to  the 
same  locality  ?  if  so^  please  state,  if  you  recollect,  when  and 
how  your  attention  w^isjirsi  specially  called  to  the  position  now 
occupied,  by  what  has  been  de^igimted  as  the  "  old  stone 
mound/'  A.  In  1858,  when  I  took  charge  of  the  rancho 
from  the  Administrators,  in  driving  up  the  stock  around 
the  ranchy  I  found  a  stake  that  had  live  or  six  rocks  hold 
ing  the  stake  in  position. 

Q.  5.  Please  state,  if  you  know,  who  piletl  the  additional 
stones  upon  those  iive  or  six  you  found  against,  or  around 
the  bottom  of  the  stake  you  have  referred  to — so  that  ( what 
is  designated)  the  old  stone  mound  presents  its  present  size 
and  condition. 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  because  it  assumes  as 
facts  matters  not  proven  to  be  such, 

A.  I  myself  built  it,  with  my  own  hands,[a&  I  have  built 
a  good  many  others  on  the  ranch, 

Q.  6.  What  motive  had  you,  if  any,  in  thus  building 
upon  these  five  or  six  little  stones,  you  found  placed  against 
and  holding  this  stake,  to  which  your  attention  was  first 
called  ?     A.     Kothing  more  than  to  clear  ofi:*  the  ground. 

Q.  7*  Have  you  frequently  built  like  stone  piles  upon  other 
similar  localities,  over  which  you  were  in  the  habit  of  passing 
in  search  of  stock  on  said  rancho  ?  A.  I  have  built  a  good 
many,  in  different  places  on  the  rancho. 

Q.  8.  Has  the  land  upon  which  these  stone  piles  you 
have  referred  to  been  cultivated?  A.  No,  never,  and  never 
will  be;  it  is  too  rocky. 

Q.  9.  Is  that  stake  still  standing  within  the  stone  pile 
first  referred  to,  upon  which  the  old  stone  mound  is  built  ? 
A«    No. 


255 

Q.  10.  State,  if  3-011  know,  when,  and  by  whom,  said 
stake  was  removed,  and  where  was  this  stake  placed  at  that 
time  ?  A.  It  was  removed  the  same  day  that  I  made  that 
pile  of  stones  ;  it  was  Removed  by  myself,  and  was  put  in 
the  crevice  of  a  rock,  which  is  shaded  by  a  laurel  tree. 

Q.  11.  Have  you  since  seen  said  stake;  if  so,  please  state 
when  and  where?  A.  I  have,  on  the  1st  day  of  Ar-ril, 
1876,  and  at  the  same  place  where  I  placed  it  when  I  re- 
moved it  in  1858. 

Q.  12.  Has  said  stake  since  been  removed  from  the 
crevice  of  the  rock,  in  which  you  placed  it  in  1858  ?  if  so, 
please  state,  if  you  know,  when  and  by  what  person  it  was 
removed.  A.  Yes,  it  has  been  removed,  by  myself,  on  the 
1st  of  April,  1876. 

Q.  13.  Was  there  any  other  person  present  at  the  time, 
and  saw  you  remove  said  stake  from  within  the  crevice  of 
this  rock,  as  above  referred  to  ?  if  so,  state  who  was  present, 
and  what  was  done  with  said  stake  on  that  occasion,  to  wit, 
1st  of  April,  1876.  A.  Yes,  Mr.  II.  C.  Hopkins,  Doctor 
Lyford,  and  Hugh  A.  Boyle,  and  I  handed  the  stake  to  Mr. 
Hopkins,  who  took  charge  of  the  same. 

Q.  14.  When  you,  in  person,  took  charge  of  said  rancho 
in  1858,  did  you,  or  did  you  not,  also  see  several  stakes,  stand- 
ing in  different  lines  in  this  locality,  of  similar  size,  and 
comparative  age  as  to  their  external  appearance — suggesting 
that  they  were  all  connected  with  some  special  survey? 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  as  leading  and  assuming 
reasons  as  facts,  matters  not  proven  to  be  such. 

A.  I  did;  I  saw  a  good  many  standing  up,  and  a  good  many 
knocked  doivn,  as  the  California  City  tract,  and  on  that  side 
of  the  hill. 

Cross- Examination  by  Mullen  ^  Hyde, 

Q.  15.  Had  you,  prior  to  1858,  ever  seen  said  old  stone 
mounds  ?  A.  No,  I  was  not  over  the  rancho  before  that 
time. 

Q.  16.  What  time  in  1858  was  it  that  you  first  saw  thi^ 
mound,  and  this  stake?  A.  It  was  after  the  month  of 
June,  1858,  when  I  took  charge  of  the  rancho. 

Q.  17.  Was  any  one  present  with  you  when  you  piled 
these  rocks,  and  removed  this  stake  ?     A.     No,  no  one. 

Q.  18.     You  were  alone  then,  were  you  ?     A.     I  was. 

Q.  19.  What  was  your  object  in  removing  this  stake  ? 
A.     I  had  no  special  object. 


256 

Q.  20.  Did  you  remove  the  other  stakes  referred  to  by 
you  ?     A.     No. 

Q.  21.  Explain  to  us,  if  capable  of  explanation,  bow  it 
comes  that  you  removed  this  particular  stake,  and  carryinj^ 
it  off,  placed  it  in  the  crevice  of  a  rock,  and  yet  did  not 
disturb  any  other  of  the  several  stakes  standing  in  that  lo- 
cality ?  A.  Being  a  high  knoll,  when  I  was  after  stock, 
used  to  stand  on  the  top  of  it  to  look  on  the  slope  of  the 
hill  ;  I  gotoff  of  my  horse,  and  without  thinking  anything 
more  than  to  clear  off  the  ground,  I  took  the  stake  out, 
that  the  rocks  were  holding,  and  went  to  work  and  gathered 
all  the  loose  rocks  that  were  on  the  knoll  near  the  stake, 
and  built  that  hill  of  rocks,  and  I  took  the  stake,  and  laid  it 
w^here  I  have  already  stated,  without  thinking  anything 
about  it. 

Q.  22.  Why  should  you  exercise  such  great  care,  at 
that  time,  in  preserving  the  stake,  as  you  have  stated  ?  A. 
As  I  have  already  stated,  I  did  so  without  thinking  any- 
thing about  the  stake. 

Q.  23.  Why  did  you  not  take  the  same  care,  with  re- 
ference to  the  other  stakes  of  the  same  kind,  size,  etc?  A. 
I  do  not  know ;  but,  I  did  not  ride  over  the  other  portions 
of  the  rancho  as  often  as  I  did  over  this  place  ;  because 
from  this  knoll  I  could  see  all  the  slope  of  the  hill,  which 
saved  one  from  riding  over  nearly  one-half  of  the  rancho. 

Q.  24.  Had  you,  just  prior  to  the  1st  day  ot  April,  1876, 
visited  said  old  stone  mound,  and  said  crevice,  where  the 
stake  was  placed,  and  if  so,  how  long  prior?  A.  No,  I  had 
not ;  I  had  not  seen  said  stake  since  I  placed  it  there,  till  the 
1st  day  of  April,  1876,  nor  had  I  thought  of  it. 

Q.  25.  How  many  mounds  similar  to  this  have  you  built 
on  this  Eancho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ?  A.  I  do  not 
know;  I  have  not  counted  them,  but  I  have  built  a  good 
many,  perhaps  twenty  or  thirty. 

Q.  26.  Please  state  and  describe  the  localities  where  you 
have  built,  say  ten  of  them.  A.  I  have  built  them  in  dif- 
ferent places,  where  there  is  plenty  of  loose  rock  to  build 
them,  and  wherever  I  have  pleased  to  build  them. 

Q.  27.  Please  answer  my  question.  A.  I  have  built 
that  one,  and  I  have  built  one  within  about  250  or  300  yards, 
in  a  westerly  direction,  from  the  stone  mound  referred  to,  on 
the  top  of  a  hill;  I  cannot  state  the  time  at  which  I  built  it ; 
but  it  was  a  short  time  after  I  built  the  one  in  question. 

Q.  28.  When  did  you  last  see  the  last  mound  described  ? 
A.     On  the  1st  day  of  April,  1876. 


Q. 

30. 

Q- 

31. 

Q. 

32. 

Q. 

83. 

Q. 

34. 

257 

Q.  29.  Describe  a  second  mound  and  locality.  A.  I  can't 
describe  it. 

Describe  a  tbird.     A.    I  can't  describe  it. 
Describe  a  fourth.     A.     I  can't  describe  it. 
Describe  a  fifth.     A.     I  can't  describe  it. 
Describe  a  sixth.     A.     I  can't  describe  it. 
Describe  a  seventh.    A.    I  can't  describe  it ;  they 
are  on  the  o^round  and  anybody  can  go  and  look  at  them. 
Q.  35.     Describe  an  eighth.     A.    J  can't  describe  it. 
Q.  36.     Describe  a  ninth.     A.     I  can't  describe  it. 
Q,  37.     Describe  a  tenth.     A.     I  can't  describe  it. 
Q.  38.     How  far  from  the  old  stone  mound  is  the  crevice 
of  the  rock  in  which  you  placed  said  stake  ?    A.    About  150 
yards,  or  200. 

Q.  39.  Describe  the  size  and  character  of  said  stake,  as 
you  saw  it  in  1858.  A.  The  stake  is  about  18  inches  or 
two  ft'Ct  long  ;  about  three  inches  square,  and  of  redwood  ; 
it  had  no  bark  upon  it. 

Q,  40.  Was  said  stake  split  or  sawed  ?  A.  I  cannot  say 
whether  it  was  split  or  sawed,  but  it  was  smooth  enough  to 
put  marks  upon  it. 

Q.  41.     Had  it  any  marks  upon  it  in  1858  ?     A.     Yes,  it 

Can  you  describe,  such   as  were  on  it  in  1858  ? 

Do  so.     A.     The  marks  were  VII  W". 
Any  other  marks  in  1858  ?    A.    Not  that  I  know 
or  recollect. 

Q.  45.  What  special  survey,  did  you  at  that  time  sup- 
pose that  this  mound  or  this  stake  suggested  ?  A.  I  did 
not  think  of  any  survey  at  that  time,  but  afterwards,  I 
thought  it  was  Buckelew's  Survey, 

Q.  46.  Did  the  other  stakes  by  you  referred  to  have 
similar  marks  thereon,  or  any  marks  thereon  ?  A.  Most 
all  the  stakes  were  marked. 

Q.  47.  Describe  the  marks  on  the  same  as  you  saw  them. 
A.  The  marks  were  with  the  same  kind  of  numbers  as  this 
one,  and  with  different  letters,  pointing' out  JS.  W.  N.  and  K 
in  that  way. 

Q.  48.  Describe  the  letters  and  numbers  on  all  the  stakes 
you  saw  marked.  A.  It  is  imposible  for  me  to  describe 
the  letters  on  all  the  stakes;  for  I  think  there  were  more 
stakes  there  than  I  could  count  in  an  hour  or  two,  if  I  had 
to  walk  to  every  one  of  them,  and  pick  them  out. 

Q.  49.     Describe  the  letters  on  these  stakes,  as  you  saw 


had. 

Q. 

42. 

A. 

Yes, 

Q. 

43. 

Q. 

44. 

258 

them  in  1858.     A.     I  have  ah-eady  described  them  to  the 
best  of  my  recollection. 

Q.  50.  Well,  what  letters  did  they  have  on  them  ?  A. 
It  is  imposlble  for  me  to  recollect  all  the  letters  they  had  on 
them. 

Q.  51.  Describe,  or  state,  what  letter  was  on  any  one  of 
them  ?     A.     W. 

Q.  52.     Any  other  letter  on  the  same  stake  ?    A.    VII. 

Q.  53.     Anything  else  ?     A.     Not  that  I  can  recollect. 

Q.  54.  "Was  this  same  letter  "  W,"  and  tb.ese  figures  on 
all  the  stakes?  A.  Ko,  different  letters  and  different  num- 
bers. 

Q.  55.  Why  did  you  not  preserve  some  of  these  stake^^ 
so  marked  and  numbered,  in  the  same  manner  and  with  the 
same  degree  of  care  with  which  you  state  you  d;d  witn  ihe 
stake  that  you  removed  from  the  old  stone  mound  referied 
to  ?     A.     I  do  not  kndw. 

Q.  56.  On  the  1st  of  April,  1876,  did  you  find  tljis  old 
stone  mound  in  the  same  condition  in  wliich  you  left  it  in 
1858  ?  A.  Almost  in  the  same  condition,  with  the  exce[>- 
tion  that  there  were  a  few  small  rocks  down. 

Q.  57.  Describe  the  manner  in  which,  in  1858,  you  built 
said  old  stone  mound,  and  the  shape  and  the  size  thereof. 
A.  I  believe  that  I  have  already  stated  that  I  found  the 
stake  on  the  top  of  the  knoll,  with  ^ve  or  six  rocks,  holding 
the  stake  ;  I  took  up  the  stake,  and  fixed  up  the  rocks,  and 
built  on  the  top  of  those  few  rocks,  with  all  the  loojje  rocks 
that  were  laying  on  the  top  of  the  ground  near  the  stake  ;  I 
cannot  state  about  the  size  of  the  pile  of  rocks,  because  I 
did  not  measure  it ;  the  shape  was  kind  of  round  ;  I  tried  to 
get  it  as  even  as  I  could. 

Q.  58.  Was  this  because  you  supposed  this  old  stone 
mound  was  a  monument,  suggesting  that  it  was  connected 
with  some  special  survey  ?  A.  No  ;  I  did  not  suppose  any- 
thing, or  think  anything  of  a  survej^,  or  anything  else — at 
that  time. 

Q.  59.  Did  you  not  suppose  that  the  other  stakes  were 
monuments,  suggesting  that  they  were  all  connected  with 
some  special  survey  ?  A.  I  had  heard  that  the  other 
stakes  were  for  town  lots,  that  Buckelew  had  laid  out  on 
the  California  City  tract. 

Q  60.  Did  you  hear  the  same  thing  in  reference  to  the 
stake  which  you  removed  from  the  old  stone  mound  ?  A. 
No — because  where  that  stake  was  set  was  considered  out- 
side of  the  California  City  lines,  or  tract. 


259 

Q.  61.  Then  the  stake  in  the  old  stone  mound  bad  no 
K50iinection  with  the  special  surveys  that  were  marked  with 
the  other  stakes  ?     'A.     That  is  more  than  I  can  say. 

Q,  62,  Have  ^''ou  seen  an5'  of  those  other  stakes  referred 
to  since  1858  ?     A.     I  have. 

Q.  68,  How  recently  V  A.  I  do  not  -recollect,  but  it 
was  when,  I  believe,  Mr.  Buchanan  was  surveying  for  Peter 
<jrard  ner, 

Q.  64,  Was  any  one  with  you  at  the  time?  A.  I  be- 
lieve Buchanan,  the  surveyer,  was  with  me,  and  either 
Peter  Gardner  or  his  brother. 

Q.  Q5^  J')o  you  know  where  that  man  Buchanan  is,  and 
state  his  first  name,  if  you  know  it.  A.  I  do  not  know 
where  he  is  wor  4.o  I  know  his  first  name;  the  last  I  heard 
of  him  was  that  he  had  gone  to  Los  Angeles. 

Q.  66,  Was  that  stone  mound  over  inside  of  what  was 
dialled  the  California  City  tract?     A.     No, 

Q.  67.  A  re  you  one  of  the  parties  in  interest  in  this  case? 
A.     J  am;  I  am  one  of  the  heirs  of  John  Read,  deceased. 

Q.  68.  Was  there  any  rock  moands  at  the  localities 
where  the  other  stakes  were  [»laced  ?  A,  No;  some  of 
■them  were  driven  in  the  ground  and  others  were  down. 

Q.  69.  Were  all  these  other  stakes  inside  the  California 
City  tra€t?  A,  The  most  oi  them  were  ;  thei'c  were  a  few 
outside. 

JOHN  J.  READ. 

Hiram-  Aasiin  recalled  %  *S.  A.  Sharp ^  for  clamaits. 

Q.  1.  Witness  is  here  shown  a  map  and  asked  if  he  re- 
cognizes the  same;  if  so,  what  does  it  represent,  and  how 
J(mg  since  you  have  known  the  same  ?  A.  I  have  the  m  ip 
before  me  ;  I  saw  this  map  fir.st  in  1865,  (jo,  or  67, 1  am  not 
positive  which  year,  at  Peter  Gardner's  house  ;  it  is  a  phit of 
the  surveys  or  a  portion  of  them  at  least,  made  under  the 
direction  of  B.  R.  Buckelew,  in  laying  out  the  streets  and 
blocks  of  California  City  and  Marin  Cit\'. 

.Q.  2.  Does  it  also  contain  other  [)latting?  if  so,  state 
what.  A.  It  does;  among  otlier  things,  it  shows  the  exterior 
boundary  lines  of  the  tract  of  land  known  as  the  Caltfornui 
City  Tract;  it  also  shows  the  shore  line  of  the  Bay  of  San 
Francisco,  and  it  shows  the  base  atri  meridian  lines,  from 
which  the  streets  and  streets  are  laid  otfand  numbered. 

Q.  3.  Do  you  believe  said  map  to  be  a  copy,  or  an  ori- 
ginal plat  of  the  surveys  referred  to  ? 


260 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  as  incamp^tent ;  on'gfnaP 
maps,  or  copies  thereof,  cannot  be  proved  in  any  such  man^ 
ner, 

A.  I  believe  it  to  be  an  oriorinal  plat;  the  work  on  it 
showing  that  it  was  made  from  the  field  notes  of  the  survey, 

Q.  4,  Does  the  map  before  yo«  purport  to  be  an  ori-* 
ginal  or  a  copy  ;  or  does  its  appearance  indicate  that  it  is 
ancient  or  modern?  A.  The  appearance  indicates  that  it 
is  a  number  of  years  old;  I  know  it  to  be  as  much  as  nine 
3'ears  old;  but  I  have  no  means  of  knowing  how  old  it  is; 
the  indications  on  the  map  would  indicate  to  any  draughts- 
man  that  it  was  platted  from  the  lield  note^,  and  conse- 
quently an  original  map, 

Q,  5,  Witness  is  shown  Exhibit  ''P.  G.  'Eo.  2/'  and  is 
asked  if  this  map  correctly  represents  the  California  Oity 
Tract,  as  claimed,  and  now  in  possession  of  Edwin  Gardner; 
and  marked  on  said  P^xhibit:  ''^  Claim  by  Edwin  G^rdner^ 
320  acres/ ^ 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde  as  irrelevant, 

A.  The  lines  drawn  on  tiie  map,  and  shaded  yellow,  cor- 
rectly represent  the  location  of  the  California  City  tract,  so- 
called,  as  now  i!i  possession  of  Edwin  Gardner;  a  portion  of 
the  sentence  ''  California  City,  claimed  by  Edwin  Gardner, 
329  acres" — is  written  outside  of  the  lines  drawn  to  repre- 
sent the  California  City  tract, 

Q,  6.  l>oes  the  tract  yon  have  mentioned  on  your  last 
answer,  correspond  with  the  tract  represented  upon  the  old 
Buckelew  map,  which  has  been  exhibited  to  you,  and  which 
you  state  from  its  appearance  to  have  been  made  from  iield 
notes  and  which  map  we  now  offer,  marked  "Ex.  B,  li. 
Buckelew  !No.  1,"  by  traced  copy. 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde;  said  two  Exhibits  being 
in  evidence  will  speak  for  themselves ;  said  last  Exhibit  is 
objected  to  as  incompetent ;  it  has  no  scale ;  it  has  no 
meridian;  it  bears  no  title  ;  it  does  not  show  when  or  by 
whom,  or  for  what  purpose  it  was  made,  nor  authenticated 
in  any  manner  whatsoever,  but  bears  on  its  face  marked 
discrepancies,  as  to  the  exterior  boundaries  of  the  tract-re- 
ferred to. 

A.  It  does  not ;  the  showing  of  the  boundary  lines  on 
the  Buckelew  map,  Ko.  1,  correspond  with  the  description 
given  in  the  deed  of  the  tract  from  Buckelew  to  Gardner, 
while  the  tract  as  shown  Ex.  P.  G.  No.  2,  does  not  show 
lines  corresponding  with  the  deed  above  referred  to. 

Q.  7.    Look  at  Exhibit  P.  G.  No.  2,  at  the  place  marked 


261 

*'old  stone  mound,"  and  state  whether  that  is  the  same  mound 
referred  to  in  the  testimony  of  Mr.  AUardt  and  in  your  for- 
mer testimony  in  this  case,  and  whether  it  is  correctly  re- 
presented thereon,  and  your  means  of  knowledge  ?  A.  The 
point  marked  "  old  stone  mound,"  on  Exhibit  P.  G.  No.  2, 
shows  the  location  of  said  mound  with  respect  to  surround- 
ing objects  shown  on  said  Exhibit.  By  surrounding  objects 
I  mean  the  shore  line  of  the  Bay  of  San  Francisco,  Califor- 
nia City  Point,  the  lines  of  the  California  City  Tract,  and 
particularly  the  point  marked  on  the  map  as  the  end  of  the 
521st  course  of  the  Ransom  survey.  I  ascertained  this  state 
of  facts  by  reducing  the  measurements  on  the  Buckelew^ 
map  No.  1,  and  applying  them  on  the  map  marked  P.  G. 
No.  2,  as  also  by  applying  the  bearings  taken  by  Mr.  Allardt 
as  shown  in  his  testiniomy  and  tested  and  found  correct  by 
myself  on  the  ground, 

Q.  8.  The  witness  is  here  shown  Exhibit  ^'M.  and  H. 
X.  Y.  Z."  and  is  asked  if  he  has  compared  said  last  named 
Exhibit  with  Exhibit  P.  G.  No.  2,  with  reference  to  the 
exact  position  of  what  is  represented  thereon  as  stone  mound, 
and  state  if  they  agree  with  each  other  as  to  position  of  the 
stone  mound  as  above  referred  to  ?  A.  I  have  compared 
the  position  of  the  point  marked  *^  stone  mound,"  on  the  Ex- 
hibit M.  and  H.  X.  Y.  Z.  with  the  position  of  the  point 
marked  old  stone  mound  on  Exhibit  P.  G.  No.  2,  and  find 
them  to  be  identical. 

Q.  9.  Witness  is  now  shown  Exhibit  Buckelew  No.  1, 
being  a  traced  copy  of  the  map  heretofore  designated  by 
him  in  his  testimony  as  Buckelew's  map  of  California  and 
Marin  cities,  and  is  asked  to  locate  the  position  of  said  old 
stone  mound  thereon.  A.  I  have  heretofore,  by  careful 
measurement,  located  the  exact  position  which  the  old  stone 
mound  occupies  with  reference  to  surrounding  objects  on 
the  Exhibit  before  me,  and  it  is  shown  on  said  Exhibit  by  a 
red  dot  within  a  small  re<l  circle  in  the  central  portion  of  the 
left  hand  end  of  the  map.  The  certificate  dated  April  17th, 
1876,  and  signed  by  me,  and  also  the  reference  to  the  scale 
sighed  by  me,  and  also  tlie  references  and  writing,  referring 
to  the  dot  as  representing  the  position  of  the  old  stone 
mound  signed  by  me,  and  the  other  writing  on  the  map  re- 
ferring to  the  old  stone  mound,  and  the  dot  representing  the 
same,  signed  by  me,  were  made  by  me  on  this  traced  copy, 
and  do  not  appear  upon  the  original.  My  object  in  making 
the  said  certificates  and  writings  and  signing  the  same  was 
to  elucidate  and  explain  my  evidence.  All  of  which  appears 
in  each  of  said  writinirs. 


262- 

Q.  10.  Please  look  upon  saict  last  mentioned  Exhibit 
and' state  what  the  position  marked  with  a  red  dot  surround- 
ed by  a  circle  represents?  A.  It  represents  the  crossing, 
ol'  two  streets;  one  is  shown  on  the  map  as  a  Street  1  1^^ 
and  the  other  as  a  Street  VII  W.  The  Exhibit  before  me 
shows  only  the  portions  of  the  original  which  were  drawn  in 
ink.     The  pencil  portions  are  not  copied. 

MuHen  &  Hyde  object  to  the  introduction  and  \me  of,  as- 
an  Exhibit  in  this  case,  the  copy  traced  on  linen  of  what  is- 
purported  to  be  a  map  of  what  is  termed  the  Buckelew 
survey  of  the  California  City  Tract,  for  reasons  as  follows: 

1st.  Because  said  traced  copy  i&  not  certified  or  other- 
wise authenticated  by  the  U.  S.  Snrv^eyor-Gei>eral,  as  being  a 
full,  true  and  correct  copy  of  the  original  thereof  a&  hereto- 
for  oifered  and  already  on  file  in  this  case. 

2d.  Because  said  traced  copy  is  not  certified  or  authen- 
ticated by  any  other  person,  capable  ar  authorized  in  law  to- 
certify  to  the  correctness  thereo£ 

3d.  Because  said  traced  copy,  w^ben  introduced  and  filed, 
had  thereon  writings,  figures,  annotations  and  other  addenda 
not  contained  on  the  original  thereof. 

4th.  Because  said  traced  eopy  tails  to  show  lines,  anno- 
tations and  other  matters  delineated  on  the  original,  w^hicli 
in  our  judgment  are  essential  and  necessary  to  be  shown, 
and  which  not  being  so  sliown,  under  said  tracing  only  a 
partial  and  garbled  copy  of  the  original. 

5th.  Because  said  original  would  appear  to  be  represen- 
tations of  matters  by  new  or  fresh  lines  delineated  on  a 
sheet  of  very  old  and  soiled  paper,  as  if  for  the  purpose  of 
giving  antiquity  to  said  original,  and  lays  the  same  open, 
and  liable  to,  if  not  deserving  of  the  objection^  of  being  pre- 
pared for  a  specific  purpose  in  this  case,  to  wit ;  for  the  pur- 
pose of  confounding  an  old  stone  mound,  claimed  to  be,  by 
us,  an  old  land  mark  of  the  original  survey  of  this  rancho 
with  the  intersection  of  two  imaginary  streets  of  an  im- 
aginary^ town  "site,"  and  which  town,  in  fact,  has  not,  nor 
ever  did  have,  nor  is  ever  likely  to  have  an}"  existence,  and 
which,  even  on  said  original  plat,  does  not  appear  ever  to 
have  been  laid  down,  as  having  any  existence  on  paper. 

6th.  Because  said  original  plat  is  purported  to  represent 
and  delineate  the  field  notes  of  an  actual  survey,  when 
neither  said  field  notes,  nor  survey,  nor  any  part  of  either, 
nor  the  surveyor  w^ho  made  them,  nor  living  witnesses  cap- 
able of  testifying  to  the  facts,  nor  any  oflicial  or  other  cus- 
todian thereof  to  account  for  their  loss  or  absence. 


263 

lt\u  Because  all  of  said  matters  and  said  testimony  per* 
taining  thereto  are  sought  to  be  established  by  a  gentleman 
a,  stranger  to  the  survey,  a  stranger  to  the  original  map  so 
far  as  the  record  shows,  but  who,  apparently  in  anticipation 
of  certain  specific  questions  to  be  propounded  to  him,  had 
not  in  the  presence  of  this  office  when  asked  to  locate  the 
exact  position  thereon  of  certain  objects,  shows  by  his  an- 
swers that  he  had  already,  and  not  in  the  presence  of  this 
office  or  of  counsel,  located  the  same. 

8th.  Because  the  correctness  and  truth  of  all  of  said  mat- 
ters are  sought  to  be  established  by  a  witness  heretofore 
called,  and  only  two  days  ago,  and  by  the  same  party  who 
MOW  calls  him,  and  whose  direct  testimony  had  not  only 
been  closed  and  subjected  to  the  cross-examination  of  these 
objections  and  in  accordance  with  the  rule  invited  insisted 
upon  by  the  parties  producing  this  witness  and  made  against 
these  objectors,  the  U.  S.  Surveyor-General  established  it  as 
a  rule  to  be  followed  without  exception  in  this  case,  that  the 
truth  of  such  matters  could  not  be  shown  in  any  such  man- 
ner, and  did  decline,  and  did  refuse  to  permit  these  objec- 
tors to  introduce  new  matter  in  this  manner  unless  preceded 
by  affidavit  of  the  part}^  so  offering  the  same,  and  did  com- 
pel against  their  wishes  these  objectors  to  make  and  file  in 
this  case  an  affidavit  before  they  could  proceed  in  this  man- 
ner, and  counsel  now  moves  that  all  testimony  given  by  Mr. 
Hiram  Austin,  from  page  717  to  page  724  be  stricken  out 
for  the  reasons  above  stated,  and  that  neither  now  nor  here- 
after they  constitute  any  portion  of  the  evidence  of  this  case, 
and  the  Surveyor-General  is  now  called  upon  to  rule  upon 
said  motion. 

Objections  overruled  and  motion  denied. 

Questions  by  Mr.  Sharp: 

Q.  11.  Please  take  Mullen  &  Hyde  Exhibit  marked  O.K, 
filled  April  4,  1876,  and  is  asked  to  please  pass  a  line  in  pen- 
cil due  east  and  west,  through  the  center  of  said  old  stone 
mound  thereon  represented,  and  is  asked  to  measure  along 
said  line  thus  drawn  in  pencil  due  west  800  feet,  and  at  the 
termination  of  said  distance  make  a  dot  in  circle,  and  is 
asked,  could  a  person  standing  in  the  locality  of  said  dot  in 
circle,  see  California  City  Point ;  if  not,  please  state  why 
said  point  could  not  be  seen  ?  A.  I  have  drawn  the  lines 
and  points  called  for  in  the  question  on  the  Exhibit  referred 
to  ;  the  dot  in  the  penciled  circle  falls  in  a  ravine,  or  depres- 
sion, from  which  California  City  Point  cannot  be  seen,  on 
account  of  the  intervention  of  the  hill  on  which  the  old 
stone  mound  is  situated. 


264 

Q.  12.  Please  likewise  draw  a  line  in  pencil,  through 
the  center  of  said  mound,  on  a  true  meridian,  and  measure 
along  said  line  thus  drawn  800  feet  due  south,  and  indicate 
the  termination  of  said  line  by  a  dot  likewise  in  circle,  and 
is  asked  could  a  person  standing  upon  said  dot,  or  termina- 
tion of  said  measurement,  see  what  is  known  as  the  part  of 
San  Quentin  Point  due  north  of  said  line  ;  if  not,  please  state 
the  reasons  why. 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde  as  irrelevant  and  immate- 
rial. 

A.  They  could  not  see  that  part  of  Point  San  Quentin 
due  north  of  the  stone  mound,  from  the  point  indicated,  on 
account  of  the  intervention  of  the  hill,  on  which  said  old 
stone  mound  is  situated. 

Q.  13.  Witness  is  now  shown  a  certified  traced  copy, 
marked  Ex.  B.  E"o.  2,  and  is  asked  to  mark,  in  ink,  the  same 
points  and  lines  and  circles  upon  said  traced  copy.  A.  I 
have  transferred  said  lines  and  points  as  desired. 

Q.  14.  Have  you,  upon  the  ground  and  from  the  records 
of  Marin  County,  seen  any  evidence  that  such  a  survey  as 
Buckelew's  survey  of  Marin  and  California  cities,  as  repre- 
sented upon  Ex.  Buckelew  No.  1,  has  ever  been  made ;  if  so, 
please  state  what  such  evidence  shows  ? 

Objected  to  as  immaterial  and  incompetent. 

A.  I  have,  on  the  ground  included  in  these  surveys,  seen 
numbers  of  stakes  marked,  which  from  tests  applied  in 
measurements,  the  data  of  which  I  took  from  this  map 
proved  to  be  monuments,  set  to  perpetuate  lines  of  streets 
and  blocks,  as  shown  on  this  map ;  I  have  also  had  occa- 
sion, in  my  official  capacity  of  County-Surveyor  of  Marin 
County,  to  re-locate  on  the  ground  a  lot  conveyed  by  B.  R. 
Buckelew  to  Susan  Wright,  said  lot  being  one  of  the  lots 
shown  on  this  map,  in.  the  portion  of  this  plat  known  as 
Marin  City,  at  Point  San  Quentin,  the  description  in  that 
deed,  (which  is  a  matter  of  record  in  the  Recorder's  Office 
of  Marin  County,)  refers  to  and  follows,  in  measurement  and 
direction,  the  lines  of  streets  and  blocks,  as  shown  on  this 
map,  marked  "Ex.  Buckelew  No.  1 ;"  there  have  been  also, 
within  the  last  18  months,  other  stakes  on  Point  San  Quen- 
tin, so  marked  as  to  be  evideiitly  of  the  same  series  of  mon- 
uments found  on  California  City  Survey. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  move  that  the  foregoing  answer  be  stricken 
out,  as  secondary  and  incompetent. 

Q.  15.  Can  the  site  upon  which  this  old  stone  mound  is 
situated  be  seen  by  a  person  standing  upon  the  deck  of  a 


265 

steamer  crossing  from  Saucelito  to  San  Francisco,  over  the 
usual  course  of  steamers  between  these  two  points  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde  ^s  irnmaterml. 

A.     It  cannot. 

Cross- Examination  by  Mullen  ^  Hyde, 

Q.  16,  You  state  that  you  first  saw  th-e  original  of  "  Ex, 
Eackelew  l^o.  1"  in  1865,  6Q,  or  67;  please  state  when, 
where  and  in  whose  ciastody  you  next  saw  said  original  ? 
A.  I  have  not  seen  it  since  that  time  until  the  present  oc- 
casion. 

Q.  17.  Did  you  not  see  said  original  outside  of  this  office 
prior  to  being  recalled  by  claimants  to  testify  in  relation 
thereto  ?  A.  I  saw  it  in  my  office,  in  San  Rafael,  and 
here,  before  I  saw  it  yesterday. 

Q.  18.  How  did  it  get  into  your  office  in  San  Eafael,  and 
when  ?  A,  Doctor  Lyford  brought  it  to  my  office  in  San 
Kafa€l,  one  evening  last  week. 

Q.  19.  For  what  purpose  ?  A.  I  think  his  object  was 
to  see  at  what  point  on  the  map  Mr.  Allardt's  bearings  and 
measurements  woula  locate  the  old  stone  mound. 

Q.  20.  Did  he  state  that  to  be  the  object  ?  A.  He  did 
not  state  to  me  explicitly  what  object  he  had  in  vi^w,  that 
I  recollect  of — but  I  judged  afterwards  from  what  occurred 
during  the  time  he  was  at  my  office  ;  and  I  think  also  he 
wished  to  ascertain  whether  I  recognized  the  map  as  one  that 
I  had  previously  seen. 

Q.  21.  Does  this  original  map  appear  on  its  face  as  to 
lines  in  ink  and  pencil,  and  annotations,  the  same  in  all 
respects  as  when  you  saw  it  in  65,  66,  or  67  ?  A,  I  recol- 
lect that  a  portion  of  the  lines  were  drawn  in  ink,  and  a 
portion  in  pencil  at  that  time  ;  but  do  not  know  absolutely 
that  there  have  not  been  additional  hues  inked  in  since  that 
time. 

Q.  22.  Do  you  know  whether  any  of  the  lines  thereon 
have  been  re-traced  in  ink  since  you  first  saw  it  ?  A.  I  do 
not  know  whether  there  has  been  or  has  not  been. 

Q.  23.  Did  you  indicate  on  this  map  in  any  manner  the 
position  that  would  correspond  to  the  position  of  the  old 
stone  mound,  as  represented  on  the  other  Exhibits,  concern- 
ing which  you  testified  yesterday  ?  A.  I  made  no  marks, 
or  dots,  nor  any  addition  to  the  map  whatever,  I  may  have 
pointed  out  on  the  map  where  the  point  would  come. 

Q.  24.     I  notice  on  this  original  map  two  dots  in  lead 


26(y 

p-errcif,  freshly  made,  which  I  will  point  out  to  you,  armi 
loark  in  pencil  opposite  to  theni  A..  B.  within  circles  ;  were 
said  two  dots  on  the  map  when  you  first  saw  it  ?  A.  I  think 
the  dot  A.y  at  the  time  I  saw  the  m^ap  last  weeky  had  an  ap- 
pearance  like  the  two  dots  abo\^e  it^  bitt  has  since  been 
shaded  deeper  with  a  pei>cil ;  I  thi»k  the  dot  B.  was  not  on* 
the  map  at  that  time^ 

Q.  25.  Was  dot  B.  oo  th?s  map  yesterday,  when  yotn 
were  testifying  in  relation  to  said  map^  then  before  you  ? 
A.     I  cannot  tell  whether  it  was  or  not. 

Q.  26.  Please  project  on  said  original  map,  in  pencil,, 
the  position  con-esponding^vith  the  position  of  the  old  stone 
mound  referred  to.  A,  I  have  not  the  necessary  instru- 
ments here  to  do  so,  and  it  would  require  more  time  than  I 
have  at  my  command  just  now — ^I  am  willino^  to  do  so  iin 
presence  of  counsel^  whenever  an  opportunity  offers, 

Q.  27.  Did  you  make  this  traced  copy  oi  the  o-riginal  ? 
A.     No,  I  did  not,  but  carefully  compared  them, 

Q.  28,  Did  you  project  on  this- tracing  the  position  of  a 
red  dot  marked  in  a  circle  thereon,  to  represent  the  position 
of  the  old  stone  mound?  A,  I  placed  the  dot  surrounded 
by  a  red  circle  which  indicates  the  location  of  the  old  stone 
mound  on  this  map,  from  measurements  and  courses  taken 
thereon: 

Q.  29.  Did  you  furnish  the  data  to  any  other  person  ? 
A.     I  did  not, 

Q.  30.  What  data  and  from  what  sources  obtained,  did 
you  indicate  said  position?  A.  I  used  Mr,  Allardt's  field 
notes  as  given  in  his  testimony  and  proven  by  myself  on 
the  grounds  to  be  c<)rrect  as  far  as  bearings  are   concerned. 

Q.  31.  Please  indicate  on  this  tracing  by  a  red  dot  marked 
"B"  the  position  corresponding  with  the  position  of  the 
dot  marked  "  B,"  referred  to  by  you  in  answer  to  question 
24?  A.  Surveyor-General  explains  that  dot  '^  B "  was 
placed  on  the  map  by  himself  this  morning,  while  consider- 
ing the  objections  of  counsel  for  contestants, 

Q.  32.  Do  you  know  the  date,  when  the  so-called  Buck- 
elew  Survey  was  made?     A.     I  do  not. 

Q.  33.  Do  you  know  of  any  reason  why  any  points  on 
the  ground,  outside  of  the  land  you  speak  of,  as  having  been 
deeded  by  Buckelew  to  Gardner,  shuld  he  marked  to  denote 
intersection  of  streets,  and  which  points  are  shown  to  be 
entirely  outside  of  what  purports  to  represent  a  town  site  on 
the  original  map  marked  as  Exhibit  Buckeiew  No.  1,  in 
ink  ?    A.    At  the  time  that  the  town  site  was  laid  out,  Buck- 


267 

«lew  ownefl,  or  claimed  to  own,  several  thousand  acres  of 
land  in  Marin  County,  which  inclnded  the  Read  Rancho, 
on  which  California  City  was  laid  out,  and  the  Rancho  of 
Punta  de  San  Queatin,  on  a  portion  of  whi<3h  Marin  City 
was  laid  out;  the  tracing  marked  Ex.  Buckekw  x^To.  1, 
■does  not  show  the  portion  of  the  town  site  which  is  shown 
on  the  original  by  lines  drawn  in  pencil ;  a  large  portion  of 
which  town  site  was  outside  of  the  tract  of  land  conveyed 
by  Bnckelew  to  Gardner. 

Q.  34.  Bo  you  know,  or  have  you  any  means  of  ascer- 
taining what  sifi^ns  or  characters  were  used  or  employed  in 
«ald  survey  to  denote  and  mark  the  intersections  of  streets  ? 
A.  These  which  I  have  seen,  or  to  which  my  attention  has 
been  culled,  have  been  mai'ked  with  letters  N".  S.  E,  or  W, 
and  with  Roman  numerals  indicating  the  position  of  the 
stakes  on  which  the  niarks  were  made  from  the  crossing  of 
the  base  and  meridian  lines,  as  shovyn  by  the  lines  and  figures 
on  said  mayj. 

Q.  35.  Have  you  seen  the  stake,  which  is  said  to  have 
been  removed  from  the  old  stone  mound  in  1858,  by  John 
Read  ?  •  A,     I  have. 

Q.  36,  Does  it  bear  any  letters  and  numerals,  and  if  so, 
what  ?  A.  It  has  very  distinctly,  on  it,  the  Roman  num- 
erals VII.  and  the  letter  W;  the  stake  appears  to  me  to  have 
had  other  marks  or  figures  cut  thereon,  but  they  have  become 
illegible,  as  I  judge,  from  the  lapse  of  time. 

Q.  37.  If  said  numerals  were  used  to  denote  the  number 
of  the  street  from  the  base  line  and  sajid  W  to  indicate  its 
direction  from  the  meridian,  would  not  said  stake  apply  to 
any  point  of  street  VIL,  from  the  base  with  an  intersection 
of  any  other  street  at  right  angles  therewith  equally  as  to 
the  intersection  of  streets  indicated  in  said  plat  as  Street  I. 
]^.  and  VIL  W,  in  the  absence  of  any  positive  proof  to  the 
contrary  ?     A.     Most  undoubtedly  it  would. 

Q.  38.  Have  you  seen  any  other  stakes,  either  on  the 
Marin  City  plat,  (»r  California  City  plat,  similarly  marked^ 
and  if  so,  when  ?  A.  I  have,  at  different  times  during  the 
last  ten  years,  in  making  surveys  and  in  passing  over  these 
lands,  seen  stakes  marked  with  the  letters  and  numerals  in 
my  answer  to  question  34. 

Q.  39.  Can  you,  and  will  you,  if  possible,  please  do  so, 
furnish  this  office  for  the  purposes  of  this  case,  any  one  of 
the  stakes,  that  you  have  found  so  marked,  say  within  the 
next  30  days  ?  A.  I  know  of  one  that  I  can  furnish  and 
will  furnish  it. 


26^8' 

Q,  40r  When,  where  aud  in  whose  custody  did  you  last 
see  the  stake,  which  it  is  alleged  stood  in  the  old  stone- 
mound  and  as  having  been  removed  therefrom  by  Mr.  Johni 
Read  ?  A.  I  saw  it  last  in  the  Surveyor-General's  Office,, 
in  San  Francisco,  but  I  don't  know  i»  whose  custody  it  was; 
I  think  it  was  on  Monday  or  Tuesday  of  this  week. 

Q.  41.  In  whose  custody  did  said  stake  appear  to  be  at 
that  time  ?  A.  I  saw  it  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Wild,  Doctor 
Lyford,  and  had  it  in  my  hands  in  the  draughtsmen's  room,, 
but  do  not  know  in  whose  custody  it  wa&. 

At  this  stage  the  witness  says  I  know  of  one  which  I  will 
furnish  now,  which  is  marked  IT  S.  on  one  side  and  X.  W. 
on  another  side.  This  stake  I  found  standing  without  doubt 
in  its  original  position,  and  from  crossbearings  taken  and 
measurements  made  on  the  ground  and  from  that  position,, 
and  applied  to  the  Buckelew  Map  of  California  City,  it  un- 
doubtedly stood  at  the  point  shown  on  the  map  as  the  cross- 
ing of  the  street  II.  south  with  the  street  X,  w^est. 

Q.  42.  Are  the  marks  "X  W."  made  in  the  same  man- 
ner and  with  the  same  instrument  as  the  iigures  "II  S?'' 
A.  I  have  no  means  of  knowing;  they  were  both  made  by 
some  sharp  instrument,  as  the  point  oi  a  kiufe,  but  I  have 
no  means  of  knowing  whether  they  were  both  made  by  the 
same  knife. 

Q.  43.  Please  indicate  on  the  original  Buckelew  Map 
the  position  where  yon  found  said  stake  ?  A.  I  am  indi- 
cating that  point  with  my  pencil. 

Witness  now  points  to  a  position  on  line  ten  from  the 
meridian,  which  he  marks  in  pencil  with  a  cross, 

Q.  44.  Can  you,  and  will  you,  produce  the  stake  which 
is  said  to  have  been  taken  from  the  old  stone  mound  ?  A. 
It  is  not  in  my  possession  nor  keeping. 

Q.  45.  Where  did  you  get  the  other  stake  from  which 
you  already  produce  ?  A.  Dr.  Lyford  procured  and  handed 
it  to  me  on  the  occasion  of  my  reference  to  it. 

Q.  46.  Please  indicate  on  the  original  Buckelew  map 
the  street  in  the  ink  portion  thereof,  the  intersections  of 
which  with  other  streets  would  likely  have  been  marked 
with  II.  S  ?  A.  It  would  be  the  second  street  south  of  the 
base  line. 

Q.  47.  If  the  lines  of  that  street  were  prolonged  westerly 
and  in  the  same  direction,  would  the  intersection  thereof 
with  street  corresponding  with  X.  W,  be  coincident  with  or 
difterent  from  the  position  which  you  have  marked  in  pencil 
with  a  cross  on  the  traced  copy  of  said  original  ? 


269 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Sharp,  as  incompetent,  irrelevant,  and 
immaterial 

A.  The  pencil  cross  on  the  tra<3ed  map  is  drawn  at  the 
crossing  of  the  second  street  south  of  the  base  line  running 
parallel  with  said  base  line  and  the  street  marked  X.  W. 

(}.  48.  That  answer  not  being  responsive  to  my  que^ion 
please  answer  the  question  as  I  asked  it  ?  A.  The  cross 
on  the  traced  map  is  not  made  on  the  street  which  Mr, 
Mullen  understands  to  be  the  second  street  south  of  the  base 
line,  but  it  is  at  the  crossing  of  the  second  street  south  of 
the  hase  line  and  the  street  marked  X.  W.,  if  the  streets  are 
nnnibered  from  the  base  line  south  along -the  street  marked 
X.  W.,  heginning  at  the  base  line, 

Q.  49.  Have  you  ever  seen  any  other  map  purporting 
to  be  a  survey  of  this  same  town  site  ?  A,  I  have  seen  one 
representing  the  California  City  Tract,  but  with  no  showing 
of  streets  or  blocks. 

Q.  50.  Is  there  anything  on  file  in  the  County  Sur- 
veyor's office,  in  Marin  County,  relating  to  the  subject  mat- 
ter? A,  Nothing  relating  to  the  town  site  of  California 
Citv, 

HIRAM  A^USTIK 

Adjourned  till  11  o'clock  to-morrow,  the  20th  dav  of 
April,  A,  D.  1876. 


April  21st,  1876. 
Met  pursuant  to  adjournment,  and  adjourned  till  9J  o'clock 
to-morrow  morning. 


Friday,  April  21st,  1876. 
Met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

I.  H.  Wildes,  called  and  sworn  as  a  witness  on  behalf  of 
claimants. 

Q.  1.  What  is  your  name,  age,  and  place  of  residence? 
A.  My  name  is  I.  H.  Wildes,  age  21  ^^ears  and  upwards, 
occupation  surveyor  and  civil  engineer,  and  chief  draughts- 
man in  the  ufHce  of  the  U.  S.  Surveyor-General  for  Cali- 
fornia. 

Q.  2.     Did  you  direct  a  traced  copy  to  be*  made  of  a  map 

marked  "  Ex.  Buckelew  I^o.  1  ?"     A.     I  did. 

Q.  3.  Is  it  usual  in  your  office,  when  called  upon  to 
make  traced  copies  of  maps  from  an  original  map,  to  cop}' 


2Ta 

any  pencil  marks  not  filled  in  with  ink  ?  A.  It  fs  not^ 
our  maps  in  the  office  often  contain  notes  of  explanation^ 
etc.,  in  pencil,  in  making  copies  of  such  maps.  It  is  not 
usual  to  copy  such  notes. 

Q.  5.  Please  look  at  the  original  map  marrked  Exhibit 
Buckelew  ]S"o  1,  and  state  what  the  lines  in  pencil,  extend- 
ing the  lines  of  straight  and  diverging  streets,  up  to  their 
respective  base  line,  would  seem  to  represent  ?  A.  They 
would  seem  to  represent,  to  the  best  of  my  judgment,  the 
base  line,  from  which  the  lines  of  streets  and  blocks  were 
projected, 

Q.  6.  Would  you  from  this  fact  consider  this  an  oi'iginal 
plat  ?  A.  I  should  so  consider  it  from  the  fact  of  the  peu'^il 
lines  being  on  it;  from  the  fact,  also,  that  a  copy  of  the  plat 
would  not  require  the  pencil  lines, 

Q.  7.  Then  I  understand  you  to  mean  that  you  do  not 
consider  these  lines  in  pencil  pertinent  to  a  finished  map  re- 
presenting blocks  and  streets,  not  filled  in  ?    A.    I  do  not. 

Q.  8,  Please  look  at  the  original  map,  and  state  for  what 
evident  purpose  was  the  line  drawn  high  up  into  the  ad- 
joining land  (drawn  in  ink)  and  marked  base  line,  taking 
into  consideration  the  pecuHar  location  of  land  in  respect  to 
that  with  water?  A.  As  far  as  the  map  shows,  evidently 
for  the  purpose  of  the  projection  of  the  lines  of  streets  at 
right  angles  thereto. 

Q.  9.  Please  look  with  special  reference  to  the  same 
question  on  the  plat  of  blocks  and  streets  on  the  western 
portion  of  said  map,  and  answer  with  reference  thereto.  A, 
I  make  the  same  answer  as  to  question  8. 

Q.  10.  After  making  said  traced  copy  of  said  "  Ex.  Buck- 
elew  No.  1,"  were  you  directed  to  deduce  from  Ex.  marked 
''Mullen  &  Hyde,"  X.  Y.  Z.,  and  certified  traced  copy  of 
M.  &  H.  O.  K,  "Ex.  P.  G.  i^o.  2,"  the  position  marked 
"  old  stone  mound,"  and  indicate  the  same  upon  said  traced 
Exhibit,  marked  Buckelew  E"o.  1 ;  if  so,  please  state  how, 
and  what  position  it  occupies  ?  A.  I  was  requested  so  to 
do;  I  measured  the  distance  at  right  angles  from  the  Ran- 
ges 5  and  6  W  of  T.  1  north  ;  I  then  measured  a  distance 
at  right  angles  thereto,  through  California  City  Point  to  the 
position  marked  "Old  Stone  Mound  ".  on  Ex.  P.  G.  ^o.  2. 
I  then  marked  the  position  of  the  old  stone  mound,  as  nearly 
as  I  could  upon  " Ex.  Buckelew  ^o.  1  "  (traced  copy )  that 
is,  as  nearly  as  I  could  by  the  comparison  of  the  two  scales. 

Q.  11.  Did  you  do  so  without  the  slightest  knowledge 
as  to  the  reasons  why  or  where  said  mound  would  locate  on 


271 

said  ExTiilsit  ?  A.  No  reasons  were  given  to  me,  nar  did  I 
ask  any. 

Q.  12,  Is  the  position  in  a  red  dot  and  circle,  the  one 
jou  indicated  ?  A,  I  presume  it  to  be  so  ;  I  marked  it  in 
pencil,  but  it  seems  to  be  the  same  position  that  I  indicated 
in  pencil. 

Q.  13.  Did  3^ou,  or  did  you  not  test  said  position  this 
morning  and  found  the  same  to  be  correct  ?     A.     I  did  so. 

Cross- Examination  by  Mullen  ^  Hyde, 

Q.  14.  Did  you  mark  on  the  traced  copy  of  Ex-Buck* 
<elew  l^o.  1,  the  red  dot  in  a  red  circle  at  the  place  so  indi- 
<jated  on  said  tracing,  or  was  it  done  by  somebody  else  ? 
A.     I  did  not;  it  was  done  by  somebody  else. 

Q.  15.  Are  you  positive  that  the  position  of  said  red  dot 
in  said  red  circle,  is  coincident  with  the  lead  pencil  dot, 
that  you  indicated  thereon  V  A,  As  nearly  as  I  am  able  to 
judge  it  is,  by  measurement  on  the  map, 

Q.  16,  Was  this  done  in  this  room  and  in  our  presence, 
pending  the  hearing  of  this  case,  or  elsewhere  and  under 
other  circumstances?  A.  It  was  done  in  my  own  room, 
and  not  here,  nor  in  presence  of  any  one  now  present,  ex- 
cept Dr.  Lyford. 

Q.  17.  Will  you  please,  in  our  presence,  test  the  accur- 
acy of  the  projection  of  said  point?  A.  I  have  done  so, 
and  the  distance  corresponds  within  two  links,  and  the  an- 
gles within  2J  degrees ;  in  this  matter  mathematical  exact- 
ness cannot  be  expected  on  traced  copies  of  maps  measured 
by  the  scale. 

Q.  18.  Does  this  last  measurement  assume  that  the  ex- 
treme point  of  California  City  Point,  as  delineated  on  tracing 
of  Buckelew  jSTo.  1,  is  coincident  with  California  City  Point, 
as  located  on  "  Ex.  M.  &  H.  O.  K  ?"     A.     It  does. 

J,  H,  WILDES. 

R.  C.  Hopkins,  called  and  sworn  on  behalf  of  claimants. 

Q.  1.  Were  you  present  on  the  Rancho  of  Corte  Madera 
del  Presidio,  on  the  1st  day  of  April,  1876,  when  a  certain 
stake  was  found  within  the  crevice  of  rocks  overshaded  by 
a  small  laurel  tree  ;  if  so,  please  state  fully  wiiat  was  said 
and  done  on  that  occasion,  concerning  what  has  been  desig- 
nated as  the  old  stone  mound,  and  the  stake  referred  to  ?  A. 
On  the  first  day  of  April,  1876,  at  the  request  of  Doctor  B. 
F.  Lyford,  I  accompanied  him  to  the  Rancho  of  Carte  Ma- 


2T2 

dera  del  Presidio,  for  the  purpose  of  examining  the  oM 
§tone  mound  referred  to  ;  we  went  directly  to  the  house  of 
John  Read,  on  said  rancho ;  from  that  place  we  went  in  eom^ 
pany  with  John  Read  and  Hugh  A.  Boyle  to  a  place  that  I 
understood  to  be  the  grassy  knoll,  described  by  G.  F.  Al- 
lardt  in  bis  deposition  herein,  and  was  shown  what  I  under- 
stood was  the  old  stone  mound,  also  referred  to  hy  said  Al- 
lardt  in  his  testimony. 

This  stone  mound.  Read  stated  in  my  presence,  had  been 
mostly  built  by  himself;  that  in  1858,  when  he  took  posses- 
sion of  the  Rancho  of  EI  Corte  Madera,  a  stake  stood  at  the 
spot  where  the  stone  mound  now  stands;  and  that  at  that 
time,  there  were  several  stones  placed  around  said  stake; 
that  he  removed  said  stake  at  that  t"me,  to  wit,  in  1858,  and 
placed  it  in  the  rift  of  a  rock  some  few  hundred  yards  frora 
where  it  stood,  and  in  the  direction  of  his  residence. 

When  asked  if  the  stake  was  still  there,  he  replied  that 
he  did  not  know,  that  he  had  not  seen  it  since  the  time  that 
he  placed  it  in  the  rift  of  the  rock  referred  to.  Whereupon,, 
we  all  went  in  company  to  the  rock  indicated,  and  as  mak- 
ing an  examination  of  the  rifted  rock,  the  stake  heretofore 
referred  to,  was  found  laying  therein,  with,  I  think,  the  side 
exposed  to  the  action  of  the  atmosphere,  upon  which,  upon 
examination,  some  indistinct  marks  were  found,  which  I 
think,  upon  close  examination,  proved  to  be  VII.  W ;  I  was 
asked  to  take  charge  of  this  stake,  which  I  did,  and  the 
same  is  now  in  this  oHice. 

Q.  2.  Will  you  please  to  deliver  the  said  stake  into  the 
special  custody  of  the  Surveyor-General,  as  an  Exhibit,  and 
for  his  special  instruction  and  use,  in  this  case,  as  he  may 
deem  proper  ?     A.    I  will  do  so. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  move  to  strike  out  of  foregoing  answer 
all  statements  ma<le  by  John  Read  as  incompetent  and 
hearsa3^ 

Q.  3.  Please  state  if  you  are  familiar  with  the  laws, 
usages,  and  customs,  observed  by  the  authorities  of  Mexico 
in  making  grants  of  land  in  California  ?     A.     I  am. 

Q.  4.  State  if  in  the  grants  so  made,  you  find  the  loca- 
tion and  boundaries  are  usually  correctly  given,  so  far  as 
relates  to  courses  and  distances,  and  if  not  correctly  given, 
about  what  would  approximate  the  des(n'iption,  the  courses 
and  distances  given  on  the  original  title  papers,  and  the 
true  courses  and  distances  as  found  on  the  ground,  by  obser- 
vation and  measurement,  in  your  opinion. 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  as  immaterial  and  incom- 


273 

petent ;  what  would  be  true  in  one  case,  would  not  neces- 
sarily be  true  in  another,  and  no  uniform  difference  in  such 
matters,  could  possibly  exist,  and  the  answer  of  witness  must 
necessarily  be  surmise  and  guess  work. 

A.  I  find  from  my  experience,  acquired  in  the  examin- 
ation of  the  title  papers  of  Spanish  grants  in  California,  that 
the  boundaries  as  called  for  in  the  original  grant  or  titulo, 
are  generally  vaguely  given ;  and  that  when  co'irses  and 
distances  are  given  in  the  title,  they  are  generally  found 
upon  observation  and  measurement  to  be  unreliable :  I 
speak  now  of  the  calls  as  given  in  the  original  grant  or  title 
deed,  which  bears  the  signature  of  the  Governor  and  Se- 
cretary of  State,  and  which  generally  refers,  for  particular 
description  of  the  premises  granted,  to  a  diseiio  or  map, 
which  is  generally  rudely  and  inexactly  made. 

In  the  juridical  possessions  as  given  by  Alcaldes  or  Jus- 
tices of  the  Peace,  I  have  also  found,  from  an  examination 
of  all  the  records  of  such  possessions  now  on  file  in  this 
office,  the  same  general  uncertanity  and  incorrectness,  so 
far  as  relates  to  courses  and  distances,  as  given  by  the  offi- 
cers making  such  surveys  ;  in  some  instances,  the  points  of 
the  compass  being  reversed,  and  perhaps  scarcely  ever  cor- 
responding to  the  true  courses,  by  observation  ;  and  the 
same  inexactness  will  also  be  found  as  regards  the  distances, 
as  set  out  in  the  records  of  juridical  possession.  And  this, 
perhaps,  is  not  surprising,  since  these  grants  were  generally 
surveyed  without  instruments,  and  by  persons  unfamiliar 
with  that  kind  of  work,  and  who,  while  they  knew  and 
could  describe  landmarks,  had  but  little  idea  of  courses  and 
distances. 

As  to  the  measure  of  this  discrepancy,  of  course  I  can 
only  make  an  estimate,  but  I  would  say,  that  taking  all  the 
measurements  of  surveys  made  of  Spanish  grants,  when  pos- 
session was  given,  together,  that  the  discrepancy  between 
the  courses  and  distances  as  given,  and  the  true  courses  as 
found  by  measurement,  could  not  be  less  than  fifty  percent. 
+  or  —  from  the  truth. 

Q.  5.  Can  you  give  a  probable  reason  or  explanation  for 
these  discrepancies  ?  if  so,  please  do  so.  A.  In  the  early 
times  in  California,  land  was  of  little  value,  unless  some 
spring  or  other  desirable  locality  were  in  question  ;  hence, 
the  boundaries  of  ranchos  were  not  of  that  importance  that 
as  land  marks  are  with  us;  the  measurements  were  there- 
fore carelessly  made,  and  for  the  want  of  instruments,  and 
of  a  knowledge  of  their  use,  the  courses  were  incorrectly 


274 

giveii — ^tbe  country  .was  isolated,  and  tfiinTy  settled;  the 
people  were  pastoral  in  their  habits,  living  mostly  on  horse- 
back ;  and  travelling  more  by  land  marks  than  hy  roads  ; 
and  measuring  distances  more  by  the  fleetness  of  the  horse* 
they  road  than  by  measureme-nty  or  even  an  intelligent  esti- 
mation. 

These  habits  of  a  people,  would  necessarily  beget  inexact- 
ness and  vagueness,  in  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  descrip- 
tion or  measurement  of  lands. 

Adjourned  till  10  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 


Saturday,  April  22d,  I876„ 
Met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Mcamination  of  Hopkins  resumed, 

Q,  G.  In  giving  instructions  for  the  locations  of  Spanisl'i 
grants  in  California,  has  it  been  usual  or  would  it  have  been 
possible,  iijenerally,  for  the  Surveyor-General,  in  his  office,  to 
give  positive  orders  to  his  deputies,  as  to  the  lines  to  be 
selected  in  making  the  location  and  survey,  or  w^as  it  usual 
to  leave  much  to  the  discretion  and  intelligent  judgment  of 
the  deputies  in  making  the  survey  ? 

The  testimony  referring  to  the  customs  of  the  office,  ob- 
jected to  as  irrelevant  and  incompetent,  and  unnecessarily 
encumbering  the  record  with  matters  not  pertinent  to  the 
case. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  make  the  same  objection. 

A.  In  giving  instructions  to  deputy  surveyors  for  mak- 
ing surveys  of  Spanish  grants,  it  has  been  usual  for  the  Sur- 
veyor-Geiieral  to  give  the  deputies  copies  of  the  descriptive 
calls  as  found  in  the  decree  of  confirmation,  the  original 
title,  and  in  the  act  of  juridical  possession,  and  also  a  copy 
ofthediseno  as  found  in  the  expediente  of  the  grant,  to- 
gether with  any  other  data  that  might  be  found  in  the  ori- 
ginal title  papers  or  in  the  testimony  given  by  witnesses 
before  the  Board  of  Land  Commissioners  and  the  District 
Court.  But  as  these  data  sometimes  involved  inconsis- 
tencies, the  deputy,  in  making  the  survey-,  was  often  com- 
pelled to  exercise  his  best  judgment  in  endeavoring  to  har- 
monize as  far  as  possible  these  discordant  elements  in  seek- 
ing a  proper  location  of  the  rancbo  to  be  surveyed,  hence, 
much  depended  on  the  intelligent  judgment  of  the  surveyor. 


^5 

Vrtyss-Examinaiion  by  Mullen  ^  Hyde, 

Q.  7,  This  -case  discJoses  the  fa^t  that  no  instractiom 
signed  by  the  Snrveyor-Greneral  -can  be  found  of  record  in 
th.\%  office^  nor  anj  orders  signed  by  the  Surveyor-General, 
positive  or  otherwise,  given  to  Deputy  Ransom  by  said  Sur- 
veyor-General, nor  anj  authority  of  any  kind  signed  by  said 
."Surveyor- General  to  Leand-er  Ransom  to  make  any  survey 
of  this  rancho;  therelbi^  please  stat^  whether  th^  plat  repre- 
senting a  purported  survey  of  this  rancho  bears  any  internal 
evidence  that  Deputy  Ransom  ever  went  upon  the  ground, 
having  iu  his  possession  anj-  of  the  data  as  set  forth  in  your 
.answer  to  question  6,  for  the  purposes  of  making  an  actual 
survey  on  the  ground,  and  in  th^  manner  which  seems  to 
liave  been  the  custom  in  making  siirveys  of  Mexican  and 
Spanish  grant  land  claims  under  the  act  of  March  3d,  1851,, 
■by  the  U,  S.  Surveyor-General.  A.  ]^one,  save  the  en- 
dorsement found  thereon :  "  Surveyed  under  instructions 
from  the  U.  S.  Surveyor-General,  by  Leander  Ransom,  De- 
puty Surveyor,  in  September  and  October,  1873,  and  G.  F. 
Aliardt,  Deputy  Surveyor,  in  June,  1874." 

Q.  8,  Since  your  connection  with  the  Surveyor-General's 
Office,  in  1855,  have  you  ever  known  any  map  to  have  been 
ever  made  by  compiling  the  field  notes  of  any  unsworn 
private  surveyor,  and  have  the  same  purport  to  represent 
the  actual  survey  of  a  private  land  claim,  under  the  act  of 
March  3d,  1851?  A.  Beyond  making  an  examination,  trans- 
lations, etc.,  of  the  original  title  papers,  and  making  out 
the  necessary  instructions  to  deputies  therefrom,  or  furnish- 
ing the  necessary  data,  therefore  I  have  had  little  or  nothing 
to  do  with  anything  in  relation  to  the  action  of  the  office 
upon  the  returns  of  the  deputies,  of  surveys  made  in  the 
field;  therefore,  I  cannot  state  with  any  degree  of  certainty 
what  may  have  been  done  in  the  office  in  such  cases. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  object  to  the  Exhibit  referred  to  in  ques- 
tion 2,  [Jage  752,  for  the  following  reassons  ;  and  does  so,  at 
this  time  and  place,  for  the  reason  that  during  the  examin- 
ation of  yesterday  the  record  fuiied  to  show  that  said  Exhi- 
bit was  ott'ered  as  so  recorded,  and  for  the  reason  as  stated 
by  Doctor  Lyford,  that  the  words  "  as  an  Exhibit  and  "  were 
inadvertently  left  out,  and  have  been  inserted  to-day. 

2d.     It  is  incompetent. 

3d.  Because,  it  fails  to  show  any  marks  thereon,  such  as 
are  represented  to  have  been  used  in  denoting  the  intersec- 
tion of  streets  in  harmony  with  the  original  map  "Buckelew 
1^0.  1.''  *  • 


me; 

4th.  Because  it  fails  to  show  that  it  belongs  to  the  sys^ 
lem  or  class  of  stakes  similar  to  the  one  marked  II.  S.  anci 
X.  W.,  and  which  last  stake  seems  to  have  been  taken  fromj 
the  ground,  exposed  to  the  weathej,  on  all  sides,  while  thi& 
last  Exhibit  was  taken  from  the  rift  of  a  rock  where  it  is  al- 
leged to  have  laid  protected  for  18  years,  and  the  side  or 
face  that  was  exposed  to  the  weatber,  by  laying  uppermost,, 
bears,  in  the  judgment  of  those  producing  it,  quite  plainly 
the  marks  that  are  alleged  to  have  been  thereon  as  early  aa 
1858,  and  no  otber  marks,  or  letters,  or  figures  were  dis- 
eernable  on  any  of  the  other  sides  tbereof. 

K  a  HOPKINS. 

J.  B.  Howard  appears  for  claimants  in  the  absence  of  SoL 
A.  Sharp,  Esq.,  and  George  F.  Alllardt  recalled  for  cross- 
examination,  and  for  the  purpose  of  identitying  testimony 
alleged  to  have  been  given  by  him  (the  said  Allardt,  in  the 
U.  S.  Circuit  Court  in  Case  190,  Bolton  vs.  Van  Reynegom 
et  al). 

Q.  1.  Examine  Ex.  No.  4  J.  A.  R.— U.  S,  Circuit  Court, 
and  state  if  you  testified  for  the  defendants  in  said  case  on 
direct  and  cross-examination  as  stated,  and  if  said  Exhibit 
correctly  represents  the  testimony  then  and  there  by  you 
given. 

Objected  to  by  S.  R.  Throckmorton,  as  incompetent  and 
irrelevant  to  these  proceedings,  and  because  said  testimony 
has  no  bearing  upon  the  question  of  the  boundaries  of  the 
Rancho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  as  described  in  the 
evidence  of  the  papers  of  juridical  possession  in  this  case, 
and  because  said  testimony  referred  to  was  given  and  offered 
in  another  case,  the  issues  of  which  have  no  connection  with 
this  survey  and  the  said  testimony  not  having  been  offered 
or  given  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  any  survey  whatever, 
but  having  been  offered  and  given  simply  for  the  settling  of 
an  initial  point  in  dispute  in  said  case — and  also,  because  the 
witness  has  already  been  fully  cross-examined  upon  the  same 
subject  matter  in  this  examination. 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  because  this  said  Exhibit 
is  a  copy  of  testimony  certified  to  be  correct,  by  the  Clerk 
of  the  U.  S.  Circuit  Court,  and  as  given  as  stated  in  said 
certificate,  and  its  correctness  cannot  be  questioned  in  this 
case,  in  this  manner,  and  particularly  by  Mr.  Howard,  who 
is  the  party  who  presented  and  filed  said  Exhibit ;  and  while 
his  relations  as  attorney  in  this  case  seems  to  have  been 
shifted  from  those  be  heretofore  represented  and  now  sub- 


■277 

tstitntoS  for  Sol  A.  Sharp,  Esq.,  his  rehition  to  this  ExhiVi't 
Temaiiis  unchanged  and  is  uot  subject  to  his  cross-exainina- 
t\()n  for  the  purposes  stated  in  tire  question,  and  the  Sui^ 
veyor-General  is  wow  by  us  called  npon  to  rule  upon  the 
propriety  of  such  proceedings. 

Objections  sustained  by  Survejor-Genera'l. 

Mr.  Howard  excepts. 

A.  I  did  testify  in  said  case  and  Court,  and  believe  that 
this  Ex.  1^0.  4  contains  a  correct  copy  of  my  testimony,  but 
such  testimony  not  being  signed  by  me,  I  cannot  be  positive, 
of  my  own  knowledge,  as  to  its  accuracy. 

Q.  2.  Exarjftine  the  official  Ransom  AUardt  map  and 
estate  if  you  assisted  officially.  Deputy  R.  C.  Mathewson  in 
1858,  in  makiuiJ:  a  survey  of  said  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio:  and  if  so,  whether  you  ran  a  provisional  line  from 
Post  C.  M.  180,  to  Redwood  Post  P.  Q.  99,  and  W.  R.  203, 
:at  said  date,  as  the  westerly  boundary^  of  the  lands  of  said 
ranoho. 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  ixs  the  acts  of  this  witness 
in  said  matters,  if  possessing  any  virtue,  in  this  case,  and 
done  officially,  were  the  acts  of  his  principal  Mathewson;  and 
if  of  record,  said  record  would  be  the  best  evidence. 

2d.'  Because  the  question  is  indefinite  as  to  what  is  in- 
tended to  be  understood  by  the  word  '^provisional  line." 

3d     Because  it  is  immaterial 

S.  R.  Throckmorton  makes  some  objection,  and  for  rea- 
sons in  addition  thereto,  that  the  witness  has  already  fully 
testified  in  this  case,  in  regard  to  the  provisional  line  referred 
to  in  the  question,  as  being  an  experimental  line,  and  as  not 
establishing  any  line  referred  to  in  the  juridical  possession  ; 
and  further,  that  the  said  provisional  line  has  no  connection 
with,  or  relation  to,  the  western  boundary  of  said  rancho,  as 
alrtaly  proved  by  this  witness, 

A.  I  assisted  said  Mcithewson  in  making  the  survey  of 
said  rancho  in  1858,  and  I  did  run  a  line  from  "  C.  M.  P. 
180"  to  ''C.  M.  P.  181,"  and  from  ''  C.  M.  P.  181,"  to  said 
redwood  post  "  P.  Q,  99  "  and  '*  W.  R.  208."  But  I  did  not 
know  at  the  time  whether  said  provisional  line  was  intended 
by  Mathewson  to  represent  the  western  boundary  of  said 
rancho.  * 

Q.  3.  Is  that  line  identical  with  the  .western  line  as  re- 
pi-esented  by  the  AUardt  Ransom  survey  of  1873  and  1874  ? 
A.     It  is. 

Q.  4.  What  papers  and  documents  did  J)eputy  Ma* 
thevvson  have  in  1858,  in  making  said  survey? 


2TS  ■ 

OBiected  to  by  Mullen,  as  the  iiistructrons  to  Mathewsore 
fcre  of  record  id  this  office,  and'  the- papers  speak  for  them- 
selves. 

S.  K.  ThrockiBorton  interposes  a  like  abjection  and  for 
the  reason  that  said  offixiia!  inetructions  set  fcwth  what  papers- 
the  U.  S;  Surveyor-General  furmshed  him  for  his  said  gui- 
dance. 

A.  I  have  alreadj  described  those  papers  in  this  exam- 
ination-; I  do  not  remember  now  what  they  are;  I  cannot 
designate  them  from  memory.. 

Q.  5.  I  cannot  now  find  the  list  yo\x  refer  to.  Please 
state  as  nearly  as  you  can  from  memory.  A.  He  had  the 
JnstructioDQ  sitrned  by  the  U.  S.  Surveyor-Genernl  J.  W> 
Mandeville,  a  diseno  and  a  copy  of  the  juridical  measure- 
ments in  his  handwriting, 

Q.  6,  Did  he  liave  the  decree  of  confirmation  or  a  copy 
thereof?  A.  I  think  a  copy  of  the  decree  was  contained  in 
the  instructions. 

Q.  7.  Did  he  have  the  diseno'  or  map  of  the  land  from 
the  expediente? 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  as  irrelevant,  the  said  Mathewson 
survey  having  been  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  set  aside. 
All  matters  of  whatsoever  kind  or  nature  pertaining  thereto 
are  necessarily  immaterial  in  the  present  investigation  so  far 
as  relates  to  said  MathewsoDy  or  those  who  ass^isted  him  in 
any  capacity  in  making  the  survey. 

S,  K.  Throckmorton  joins  in  this  objection,  and  for  the 
reason  that  Mr.  Allardt  has  already  testified  in  full  in  this 
case  and  that  this  survey  does  not  afl*ect  the  western  boun- 
nary  of  this  survey. 

A.  He  had  a  diseno  with  him,  but  I  do  not  know  whether 
it  was  a  copy  from  the  expediente, 

Q.  8.  You  say  he  had  all  the  i>apers  and  documents 
mentioned  in  the  instructions  of  September  22d,  1858,  which 
instructions  are  now  shown  you  ?  A.  I  do  not  know 
whether  he  had  them  all  or  not. 

Q.  9.  You  say  he  had  the  record  of  juridical  possession 
or  a  copy  of  it  ?  A.  I  said  be  had  a  copy  of  the  juridical 
measurements. 

Q.  10.  Where  would  you  have  located  the  western  I'ne 
of  said  rancho  if  you  had  made  the  survey  with  the  papers 
furnished  Mathewson?  A.  ^ot  knowing  all  the  papers 
Mathewson  had  with  him,  I  cannot  answer  that  question 
definitely. 

Q.  11.     To  particularize:  if  you  had  the  papers  mentioned 


2T9 

an  said  instructions  of  September  22d,  1858,  marked  Ex.  IB 
J.  A.  R.,  together  \<^ith  the  record  of  juridical  measurements, 
how  would  you  have  located  said  westerly  line ;  I  meati  the 
grant,  the  decree  of  confirmation,  diseno  or  map,  record  of 
juridical  measurements  and  letters  of  instruction  ?  A.  You 
ask  me  where  I  would  locate  the  western  line  of  said  rancho  ? 
If  I  were  governed  by  the  calls  in  juridical  measurement  I 
should  run  said  western  boundar}^  from  the  solar  due  north^ 
to  the  Arroyo  Holon,  but  if  I  were  governed  by  the  descrip- 
tion in  the  grant,  I  would  run  the  western  boundary  line  in 
.such  a  manner  as  to  bound  the  rancho  by  the  Mission  Lands 
of  San  Rafael  on  the  north,  this  northern  boundary  being 
the  Arroyo  Holon. 

Q.  12.  What  papers  or  documents,  were  presented  to 
jou,  in  your  examination  in  these  proceedings,  by  Mr* 
Throckmorton,  or  other  objectors,  by  reason  of  which  you 
expressed  an  opinion  the  Arroyo  Corte  de  Madera  might 
constitute  the  westerly  boundary  line  of  said  Ran<;ho  of 
''  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ?" 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  and  S,  R.  Throckmorton. 

A.  There  were  several  Exhibits  shown  me,  and  I  was 
asked  how  I  would  locate  the  western  boundary,  if  guided 
by  said  Exhibits;  I  do  not  remember  the  numbers  or  con- 
tents of  said  Exhibits. 

Q.  13.  Please  examine  Ex.  S.  R.  T.  'No.  23;  also  marked 
^'  Ex.  Mullen  &  Hyde  U.  V.  W.,  April  5,  1876,  Filed  May 
26,  1875,"  purporting  to  be  a  map  annexed  to  deposition  of 
William  Hartnell,  referred  to  in  objections  of  S.  R.  Throck- 
morton from  Land  Case  104,  and  state  if  that  is  one  of  the 
Exhibits  by  force  of  which  you  were  guided  to  the  opinion 
that  the  Arroyo  de  Corte  Madera  might  form  the  western 
boundary  line  of  the  Rancho  of  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio  ? 
A.     It  was  not. 

Q.  14.  Had  you  seen  said  document  prior  to  the  5th  of 
January,  1876,  on  which  day  you  testified  that  said  arroyo 
might  constitute  the  western  boundary  of  said  rancho  ?  A. 
I  have  seen  this  Exhibit  before;  but  do  not  recollect  when 

I  first  saw  it,  nor  whether  or  not  it  was  prior  to  January 
5th,  1876.  . 

Q.  15.     Is  the  solar  you  mention,  in  answer  to  question 

II  of  this  date,  identical  with  the  solar,  or  starting  point,  as 
represented  near  Post  C.  M.  P.  180  or  181  ?     A.  "it  is. 

Q.  16.  Do  you  know  whether  the  owners  of  the  Rancho 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  in  the  year  1858  or  thereabouts, 
consented  and  agreed  to  the   selection   made  by  Deputy 


28a         .   • 

Mathew^son  of  the  survey  of  said  ran^bo,  by  legal  sirbdi  vi- 
sions, as  represented  on  the  official  plat-  of  said  survey  of 
1858,  and  herein  offered  as  the  official  plat  by  the  U,  8^ 
District  Attorney? 

Objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  as  incompetent;  consent 
of  said  claimants^  if  evermadcy  cannot  be  established  in  this 
manner  ;  and  if  ever  made,  must  be  a  matter  of  record,  and 
if  of  record,  would  be  immaterial  for  the  purpose  of  locating 
this  grai>t,  and  does  not  bind  either  the  United  States  or 
any  of  the  parties  in  thi^  case. 

8,  R.  Throckmorton  makes  same  objection^ 

A.     I  do  not  know. 

Q.  11,     Did  they  object? 

Same  ol::gections  by  Mullen  &  Hyde  and  Throckmorton^ 
as  to  preceeding  question  and  for  same  reasons  as  above. 

A.     I  do  not  know, 

J,  B.  Howard  now  offers  in  behalf  of  claimants  : 

1st.     Agreement  for  a  partition  of  said  rancho. 

2d.     A  report  of  arbitrators  or  commissioners. 

3d.  A  plat  and  description  of  the  part  allotted  to  Hilaria 
Read,  one  of  said  heirs  and  owners  thereof. 

4th.  Deed  in  partition  from  Jno.  J.  Read  and  Inez  Read 
Deffebach,  the  two  remaining  heirs  and  owners  to  the  said 
Hilaria  Read. 

5th.  A  map  of  said  rancho,  Ex.  2,  to  deposition  of  Tracy, 
showing  the  location  of  said  rancho  ss  partitioned,  as  afore- 
8  dd  and  according  to  the  said  survey  of  said  Mathewson  in 
the  year  1858. 

The  Exhibits  1,  2,  3,  and  4,  are  offered  in  original  and 
certified  copies  thereof,  will  be  filed  in  this  case  and  marked 
H.  R.  L.,  "A."  "B,"  ''C."  and  "D." 

Exhibit  No.  5  is  herewith  filed  in  original,  marked  Ex. 
H.  R.  L.  E. 

The  foregoing  Exhibits  are  all  objected  to  by  Mullen  & 
Hyde  and  S.  R.  Throckmorton,  as  immaterial  and  incom- 
petent, portion  of  said  Exhibits  being  mere  memoranda 
agreements  as  ariiong  themselves,  and  not  binding  upon  any 
other  parties. 

Q.  18.  Please  examine  Mullen  &  Hyde  ^'D.  E.  E."  and 
Ex.  *'H.  R.  L.  E."  and  "  H.  R.  L.  B."  and  state  if  said  Ex. 
'•  D.  E.  E."  is,  or  is  not  a  compound  map,  representing  fea- 
tures of  said  Exhibits  "H.  R.  L."— "B."  and  "E."  A. 
The  map  D.  E.  F.  is  generally  a  combination  of  the  other 
two  maps,  that  is  to"  say,  the  map  D.  E.  F.  seems  to  show 
all  the  lands  that  are  shown  on  the  other  two  maps  combined. 


281 

1.  B.  Howard  now  moves  to  strike  out  all  objections  filed 
jjgainst  said  Ransom-Allardt  survey  of  said  rancho,  b}^  Mu-l- 
■len  &  Hyde,  attorneys  for  their  clients,  for  the  reason  that 
said  objections  were  not  filed  in  season. 

2d.  Ail  objections  .filed  herein  by  S.  R.  Throckmortoi>, 
'or  his  attorney,  for  tlie  reason  that  he  is  not  show^i  to  claim 
•adverse  to  said  grant  any  lands  embraced  within  said  survey. 

3d.  All  objections  tiled  herein  by  Peter  Gardner,  be- 
cause he  is  not  shown  to  have  any  title  or  claim,  to  any 
lands  embraced  within  said  survey  or  grant,  and  all  othef 
objections  coming  within  the  portion  of  the  foregoing;  sec- 
■ondly,  to  strike  out  all  papers,  documents,  plats,  and  Exhi- 
bits, representing  or  relating  to  the  elaimsof  Jose  Y.  Li- 
mentour,  Wm.  A^  Richardson.  Wm.  T.  Coleman  and  Hart, 
S.  R.  Throckmorton,  or  the  University  of  California;  and 
farther,  especially  to  strike  out  Ex.  S.  R.  T.  ^o.  23,  being  a 
map — on  the  ground  that  all  of  said  claims  are  held  as  in- 
Valid,  by  the  Executive  Departments  of  the  U.  S.,  and  <jan- 
not  be  considered  in  these  proceedings  ;  and  because  said 
documents,  papers,  claims,  and  Exhibits  are  not  valid,  and 
represent  no  interest  that  can  be  recognized  by  the  United 
States,  and  are  not  binding  on  th-e  claimants,  and  constitute 
no  evidence  of  juridical  measurement  or  of  the  boundaries 
or  ownership  of  the  lands  in  question.  Said  riiotion  to  apply 
■to  all  papers  and  documents  improperly  filed  in  these  proceed- 
ings. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  object  to  all  of  said  matters  and  motion, 
•for  reasons  as  follows:  to  be  given  on  Monday,  April  24th, 
1876. 

S.  R.  Throckmorton  objects  to  all  of  said  matters  and 
•motion,  for  reasons  to  be  given  on  Monday,  April  24th,  1876, 
to  which  day,  at  11  o'clock  a.  m.,  he  moves  that  this  Comis- 
sion  adjourn. 

G.  E.  ALLARDT. 

Adjourned  till  11  o'clackon  Monday  morning,  April  24th. 


April  24th,  1876. 

Met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  object  to  motion  being  granted,  and  fot 
reasons  as  follows  : 

Ist.  It  appears,  on  page  761  of  this  record,  that  J.  B. 
Howard  appears  as  counsel,  as  a  substitute  for  Sol.  A.  Sharp, 
Esq.,  who  is  counsel  for  certain  claimants  herein  as  set  forth 
in  tliis  record. 


28-2 

2(1.  It  also  appears  that  said  Sol.  A.  Sharp  is  neither  a 
claimant  or  a  party  in  interest  in  this  oase,  but  appears  in 
the  capacity  of  counsel  and  attorney  far  certain  claimant* 
herein. 

3cl.  That  where  there  are  seveiul  defendants  or  contest- 
a!its,  as  in  this  case,  ^ind  where  it  appears  th;it  each  appears^ 
by  his  own  attorney,  the  procee lings  hei'ein.on  behalf  of 
these  defendants,  and  contestants,  must  be  conducted  by 
their  res^pective  attorneys,  and  that  the  attorney  of  any  one 
(lofend  lilt  or  contestant  cannot  give  any  notice  of  motion,  or 
rn:ike  any  motion  or  validly  file  any  motion  or  accept  notice 
of  motion,  or  stipulate  or  do  any  other  thing  for  another  at 
any  stage  of  the  proceedings  in  this  case. 

And  counsel  'does  therefore  move  that  all  the  matters  from 
page  761  to  page  776,  inclusive,  as  elicited,  shown  or  moved 
througn  J.  B.  Iloward  appearing,  for  Sol.  A.  Sharp,  E-sq.,  be 
striken  out,  and  be  considci^i^d  no  portion  of  the  evidence, 
or  matters  pertinent  in  this  case;  and  the  Surveyor-General 
is  asked  to  rule  on  the  motion. 

S.  R.  Throckmorton  joins  in  tlie  foregoing  objectionsand 
for  same  reasons  as  stated  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  and  unites  in 
in  the  same  motion  as  made  above  by  Mullen  &  Hyde. 

Objections  sustained  by  Surveyor-General  and  motion  of 
claimants  denied.  Claimants  except  to  the  rulings  and  ap- 
peal to  the  Commissioner,  and  will  farther  show,  by  evi- 
dence, that  said  J.  B.  Howard  has  been  and  now  is,  and  here- 
tofore been  tiie  attorney  of  said  claimants,  and  furtherniore, 
that  the  claims  and  interests  of  said  claimants,  Hilaria  Read 
de  Lytbrd,  Inez  Read  de  Deffebach  and  d no.  J.  Read,  are 
identical  and  in  full  •  harmony  iwith  those  of  the  United 
States,  and  the  pre-ernptors  ('ushing,  Barlow  and  Riley. 

Cour\sel  for  Valentine  (B.  S.  Brooks)  objects  to  the  fore- 
going motion  and  exception,  on  the  ground  that  said  Valen- 
tine is  one  of  the  claimants,  and  the  said  motion  and  excep- 
tion is  not  made  by  his  authority  or  consent,  and  also  on 
the  ground,  that  he,  said  Brooks,  is  the  counsel  for  and  re- 
presents said  claimants,  as  shown  by  the  record  in  said  case, 
and  that  said  motion  and  exception  are  unauthorized  on 
their  part. 

J.  B.  Howard  expressly  disclaims  any  representation 
herein  of  T.  B.  Valentme,  S.  R.  Throckmorton,  or  any  of  the 
interests  of  said  parties  in  these  proceedings — and  disclaims 
any  representation  of  B.  S.  Brooks,  Esq.,  and  only  claims  to 
represent  the  interests,  for  this  purpose,  of  the  clients  of  Sol. 
A.  Sharp,  Esq. — above  named. 


283 

J.  B.  Howai  d  now  otters  for  the  claimants,  in  behalf  of  Sol, 
A.  Sharp,  Esq.,  a  copy  of  Whitney's  State  Geological  Sur- 
vey, of  1873,  of  Bay  of  San  Francisco  and  vicinity,  for  the 
purpose  of  showing  the  location  of  the  said  Rancho  Corte 
Madera,  of  liaccoon  Straits,  of  Tiburon  Point,  and  Angel 
IslaiuL 

Exhibit  objected  to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  as  being  secondary 
and  a  conipihition,  and  as  showing  upon  its  face  that  the 
rancho,  township  and  Sec.  lines  represented  thereon  are 
delineated  and  so  shown  from  materials  furnished  by  the  U. 
S.  Surveyor-General's  office,  and  therefore  incompetent  and 
not  the  best  evidence  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  -'locus" 
of  this  or  any  other  Spanish  grant  claim. 

J.  B.  Howard  also  otters  in  connection  with  Ex.  H.  R.  L. 
A.  B.  C.  D.  and  E.,  a  deed  in  partition  from  said  Hilaria 
Read  and  Inez  Read  Dettebach  to  said  Jno.  J.  Read  ;  and  a 
deed  in  partition  from  said  Jno.  J.  and  Hilaria  Read,  to  paid 
Inez  Read  Dettebach,  marked  Exl^.  H.  R.  L.  "  F."  and  "  G.," 
by  cetified  copies  thereof. 

Otter  objected  to  as  incompetent  for  the  purpose  of  estab- 
lishing the  "  locus"  of  this  grant,  or  any  other  purpose  ex- 
cept that  of  matters  as  between  the  parties  of  the  liist  and 
second  parts  thereto. 

Doctor  Benjamin  F.  Lyford,  called  and  sw^orn  in  behalf  of 
claimants,  testitied  as  follows  : 

Q.  1.  State  your  name,  age,  residence  and  occupation  ? 
A.  My  name  is  B.  F.  Lyford,  age  38  years,  profession 
physician,  and  reside  in  the  City  of  San  Francisco. 

Q.  2.  Do  you  know  the  claimants  as  represented  by  Sol. 
A.  Sharp  in  this  case  ?  if  so,  state  wiio  they  are.  A.  I  do. 
Jno.  J.  Read,  Hilarita  Read  de  Lyford,  Inez  Readde  Dett"e- 
bach,  who  are  the  children  of  Juan  Read,  deceased. 

Q.  3.  What  relation  do  you  bear  to  said  claimants,  or 
either  of  them  ?  A.  I  am  the  husband  of  Hilarita  Read  de 
Lyford,  and  brother-in-law  to  Jno.  J.  Read  and  Inez  Read 
de  Detiebach. 

Q.  4.  State,  if  you  know,  what  attorneys  at  law  or  in 
fact,  have  represented  the  said  Hilaria 'Read  de  Lyford  in 
these  proceedings,  and  what  attorney  or  attorneys  are  auth- 
orized to  appear  for  the  said  claimant. 

Objected  'to  by  Mullen  &  Hyde,  because  the  record  shows 
what  attorneys  appear,  and  for  whom  they  appear,  and  be- 
cause it  is  incompetent. 

A.     Sol.  A.  Sharp  appears  on  tfie  record  for  Hilaria  Read 


2S4 

de  Lyford,  Jno.  J.  Read,  and  Inez  Read  de  Deffebacli,  and 
in  his  absence  Jno.  B.  Howard  is  also  now  authorized  to- 
appear,  and  has  appeared,  as  heretofore  shown  by  this  re- 
cord. 

S.  R.  Throckmorton,  a  claimant,  here  enters  of  record  his 
disclaimer  of  being  represented  in  any  way  in  this  case  by 
J.  B.  Howard,  and  he  makes  this  disclaimer  to  avoid,'  by 
implication  or  in  any  other  way,  being  represented  by  J.  B. 
Howard  in  this  case. 

Q.  5.     riease  examine  the  official  plats  of  said  survey, 
the  Ransom  &  Allardt,  1873-1874,  and  the  Mathewson  of 
1858,  and  point  out  and  designate  the   lands  thereon,  now 
owned  and  claimed  by  said  named  claimants,  Hilaria  Read 
de  Lyford,  Jno.  J.  Read,  and  Inez  Read  de  Detfebach. 

Objected  to  by  S.  R.  Throckmorton  as  irrelevant  and  in- 
competent; the  records  being  the  best  testimony  not  de- 
termining the  boundaries  of  the  Rancho  of  Corte  Madera. 

B.  S.  Brooks  joins  in  objection  for  T.  B.  Valentine. 

Q.  6.  Question  withdrawn,  and  witness  requested  to  state 
if  said  named  claimants  own  and  claim  all  of  said  lands,  re- 
presented in  the  partition  deed  and  proceedings  herein  filed, 
represented  by  Exs.  H.  R.  L.,  A.  B.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G. 

Objected  to  by  B.  S.  Brooks  as  irrelevant,  incompetent 
and  immaterial ;  S.  R.  Throckmorton  makes  same  objection 
as  made  by  him  to  previous  question. 

A.  Witness  refers  to  Ex.  "  B.,"  the  map  and  plat  attached^ 
thereto,  giving  the  conjoined  segregations  upon  said  plat, 
and  referring  to  the  central  division  marked  "A."  thereon — 
"Portion  of  Jno.  J.  Read,  area  2,061  51-JOO  acres,  as  now 
claimed  and  occupied  by  the  said  Jno.  J.  Read,  as  his  allot- 
ted portion  of  said  rancho  as  divided. 

The  divisions  C.  C,  portion  of  Hilaria  Read  de  Lyford, 
area  1,020  51-100,  and  446  47-100  as  the  portion  now  claimed 
and  occupied  by  the  said  Hilaria  Read  de  Lyford — as  di- 
vided. 

The  division  marked  B.,  portion  of  Inez  Read  de  Defte- 
bach,  646  51-100  acres,  as  the  portion  now  claimed  and  oc- 
cupied by  said  Inez  Read  de  Deftebach,  excepting  about> 
1^0  acres,  disposed  of  since  making  said  partition  as  divided.- 


28o  / 
Cross- Examin^ff ('on  hi/  Mallrri  ^  IL/de. 

Q.  1.  riease  state  whether  either  Ililaria  Read  de  L}^- 
forJ,  Inez  Read  de  Deffebach,  or  Jno.  J.  Read,  claims  any 
interest  of  any  kind,  immediate  or  remote  or  contingent,  pre- 
sent or  prospective,  in  or  to  any  portion  of  what  is  repre- 
sented as  Peninsuhir  Ishmd  on  the  plat  of  the  Ransom-Al- 
lardt  survey  ot  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  def  Presidio. 

Objected  to  as  not  being  cross-examination,  by  J.  B. 
lloward. 

B.  S.  Brooks  joins  in  objection. 

A.  Xot  to  mv  knowledge. 

Q.  2.  Has  Hilaria  Read  de  Lyford  any  interest  contin- 
gent, or  other,  in  the  determination  of  the  award  of  Penin- 
sular Island  in  controversy  in  tliis  case  ? 

Objected  to  by  J.  B.  Howard  as  not  cross-examination. 

B.  8.  Brooks  joins  in  objection. 

A.  Tlie  question  is  very  indefinite  ;  but  she  has  no  pre- 
sent interest  in  the  lands  designated  on  the  plat  as  Peninsular 
Island. 

Q.  3.  Would  said  Hilaria  Read  de  Lyford  be,  in  any 
ma!ii\er  whatsoever,  benefitted,  if  said  Peninsular  Island 
should  be  included  in  the  iinal  surve^^  of  this  rancho  ? 

J.  B.  Howard  objects. 

B.  S.  Brooks  joins  in  objection. 

A.     She  might  or  might  not  be  benefitted. 

Q.  4.  In  what  manner  might  she  be  benefitted,  by  hav- 
ing said  island  included  within  said  survey  ?  A.  She  might 
be  remotely  benefitted  by  its  being  occupied  and  built  upon, 
and  by  enhancing  the  value  of  the  adjacent  property. 

Q.  5.  In  any  other  manner  ?  A.  She  at  present  has  no 
pecuniary  interest  in  Peninsular  beyond  that,  to  my  knowl- 
edge. 

Q.  6.  Has  she  or  ber  family,  at  present,  any  contingent 
interest?     A.     Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  7.  Do  you,  as  lier  husband,  at  the  present  time,  or 
liave  you  as  such  at  any  time,  claimed,  to  have  any  contin- 
gent interest,  pecuniary  or  otherwise,  in  having  said  island 
included  within  the  final  survey  of  this  rancho?  A.  ISo 
pecuniary  interest  whatever,  j)ast,  present  or  remote — of  my 
o^vn. 

Q.  8.  I  now  ask  the  same  questions  as  numbered  2,  3,  4, 
5,  6,  7,  in  the  case  of  Inez  Read  de  Deffebach. 

Objected  to  by  J.  B.  Howard  and  B.  S.  Brooks,  as  not 
^cross-examination. 


2S6 

A.  I  do  not  know  what  pecuniary  interest  she  has  in 
said  peninsuhi,  if  any. 

Q.  9.  Have  either  one  of  these  three  parties,  to  wit, 
Hilaria  Read  de  Lyford,  Inez  Read  de  Detfebach  and  Jno. 
J.  Read,  any  interest,  immediate  or  remote,  continiJfent  or 
otherwise,  in  any  portion  of  the  Rancho  of  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio,  outside  of  the  portion  deeds,  and  lands  represented 
on  the  plats  referred  to  in  connection  therewith  V 

Ol)jeeted  to  by  J.  B.  Howard,  who  instructs  the  witness 
not  to  answer  the  question,  as  it  may  involve  questions  re- 
lating to  the  title  to  swamp  and  overflowed  lands  adjacent 
to  said  rancho,  and  pertaining  thereto,  or  riparian  rights 
and  otherwise. 

Mullen  &  Hyde  call  upon  the  Surveyor-General  for  a  rul- 
ing in  the  case. 

Surveyor-General  rules  that  witness  answer  the  question. 

A.  The  question  is  a  matter  of  law;  the  records  and  Ex- 
hibits in  this  case  will  be  the  best  evidence. 

Q.  10.  Please  state  speciiically  what  lands  outside  of  the 
land  in  said  partition  described,  said  parties  claim,  and  the 
whole  thereof.  A.  My  last  answer  will  apply  also  to  this 
+  so  far  as  relates  to  this  rancho. 

Q.  11.  Please  answer  my  question — I  refer  to  the  lands 
constituting  or  claiming  to  be  a  part  of  the  Rancho  of  Corte 
Madera. 

Objected  to  by  J.  B.  Howard,  because  the  question  is  not 
confined  to  lands  embraced  witliin  the  survey. 

2d.  Because  it  is  not  cross-examination;  and  3d,  because  it 
has  been  substantially  answered  by  the  witness  in  his  state- 
ment of  the  interest  of  said  parties,  and  that  he  did  not  know 
of  the  interests  of  said  parties  outside  said  partition  deeds; 
furthermore,  these  objections  were  made  and  witness  directed 
not  to  answer,  simply  and  onl}'  because  there  is  no  otlicer 
or  judge  present  with  authority  to  rule  out  irrelevant  testi- 
mony, and  there  is  no  other  means  of  closing  this  examina- 
tion than  by  directing  the  witness  not  to  answer  further. 

On  motion  of  witness,  adjourned  till  lOJ  o'clock  to- 
morrow morning. 

Tuesday,  April  25th. 

Case  called. 

A.  I  do  not  know  the  interest  they  claim  in  the  Rancho 
Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  except  those  mentioned  in  Ex. 
A.  B.  C.  D.  E.  F.  and  G.,  all  marked  H.  R.  L.  A.,  including 
the  records,  all  of  which  will  be  the  best  evidence. 


28T 

Q.  12.  What  do  you  understand  to  be  Ex.  E.?  (I  mean 
Ex.  H.  R.  L.  ''  E.")  A.  It  is  a  map  of  said  rancho  "Ex.  2," 
to  deposition  of  Tracy,  showing?  the  location  of  said  rancho. 

Q.  13.  Please  look  at  said  Exhibit  H.  R.  L.  "  E,"  being 
Ex.  2  to  deposition  of  Tracj^,  and  state  whether  said  claim- 
ants, named  in  your  direct  testimony,  claim  any  interest  in 
and  to  all  the  lands  represented  thereon  as  being  within  the 
exterior  boundaries  of  the  Mathewson  and'  Tracy  survey, 
and  not  including  Peninsula  Island. 

Mr.  Sharp,  for  claimants,  objects,  as  it  is  not  cross-examina- 
tion, and  immaterial  and  incompetent. 

A.  I  cannot  state  of  my  own  knowledge  as  to  what  they 
claim  beyond  the  records  and  Exhibits  tiled  in  this  case. 

Q.  14.  State  particularly  all  you  know  with  reference  to 
any  claim  thereto  or  therein  by  Hilaria  Read  de  Lyfbrd.  A. 
I  cannot  state  of  my  own  knowledge  her  claims  beyond 
those  shown  in  said  Exhibits  and  lecords  referred  to. 

Q.  15.  Do  you  know  or  have  any  means  of  ascertaining 
whether  either  of  said  parties  have  any  interest,  present  or 
prospective,  or  resulting  in  any  portion  of  the  land  lying  be- 
tween the  western  boundary  of  the  Mathewson  survey  and 
the  western  boundary  of  the  Tracy  survey,  as  represented  in 
said  Exhibit  li.  R.  L.  "E.?"  I  refer  to  aiiy  interest  in  the 
whole  thereof 

Mr.  Sharp,  f  )r  claimants,  objects  to  question  as  incompe- 
tent and  irrelevant. 

A.  I  have  no  means  of  knowing  other  than  by  the  re- 
cords. 

Q.  13.  Is  not  this  Exhibit  one  of  the  record  papers  set- 
ting forth  the  extent  of  such  claim,  and  said  Exhibit  filed 
by  your  own  counsel?  A.  A  note  attached  to  said  Exhibit 
reads  as  follows :  "  The  red  line  indicates  the  survey  made 
by  R.  C.  Mathewson,  without  regard  to  the  lines  of  the  jur- 
idical {)Ossession.  The  yellow  lines  indicate  the  additional 
quantity,  according  to  the  juridical  measurement,  including 
the  peninsula  of  the  same  color.  ^  indicates  the  sola^^ 
mentioned  in  the  act  of  the  juridical  possession.  B,  the 
'  Punta  de  Sausal,'  mentioned  in  the  juridical  survey." 

Question  13  repeated. 

Same  objection  by  Mr.  Sharp,  for  claimants. 

A.  It  is  one  of  the  papers  filed  by  my  counsel,  and  in 
explanation  of  such  I  refer  to  the  preceding  answer. 

Q.  14.  Then  Ililaria  Read  de  Lyford  does  claim  some 
interest  of  some  kind  and  of  an  undivided  character  in  and 
to  each  and  every  parcel  of  land  lying  between  the  west 


288 

boundary  of  the  Matliewson  and  the  west  bonndarv  of  vh^ 
Tracv  survey  of  the  Corte  Madera  Rancho,  as  represented  in 
Ex.H.  R.  L>'E?" 

Mr.  Sharp  for  claimants  make  same  objection. 

A.  For  your  knowledge  and  information  I  refer  you  ta 
the  records  affecting  the  hinds  within  designated,  and  cannot 
answer  beyond  those. 

Q.  15.  Is  that  the  only  answer  you  can  give  to  that 
question  ?  A.  I  cannot  answer  it  in  any  other  way  as  re- 
gards this  case  in  controversy.     . 

Q.  16.  You  are  the  husband  of  one  of  the  parties  in  in- 
terest in  this  case,  are  you  not?     A.     lam. 

Cross- Exaynmation  hj  Mr.  Gardner. 

Q.  1.  Have  you  and  your  wife  and  the  rest  of  the  heirs 
made  their  selections  of  one  square  league  of  land,  referred 
to  in  the  decree  of  final  confirmation  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Sharp  as  incompetent  and  irrelevant ; 
also  it  appears  that  Mrs.  Lyford  and  Mrs.  Deffebach  are 
married  women  and  incapable  of  making  a  selection,  alid' 
also  as  calling  for  a  conclusion  and  not  a  fact. 

A.  I  know  nothing  of  such  selections  excepting  from 
the  record, 

be:n'j.  f.  lyford,  m.  d. 

Case  adjourned  until  2  o'clock. 

G.  F.  Allardt,' called  by  Mr.   Tliroekmorion  on   Cross- Exami- 
nation. 

Q.  1.  In  your  testimony  given  ou  the  22d  inst,  in  this 
examination,  you  said  that  you  would  give  the  western  bound- 
ary of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  bound  the  rancho  by  the  mission  lands  of  San 
Rafael  on  the  north ;  this  northern  boundary  being  the 
"Arroyo  Holon;"  will  you  please  look  at  the  Ex.  marked 
"Whitney's  Geological  Map,  1873;"  will  you  look  at  the 
point  "Arroyo  de  los  Esteros"  on  said  map,  being  ihe  ar- 
royo  running  nearly  iu  an  easterly  direction  from  the  ridge 
of  Mount  Tamalpais,  and  say  if  you  recognize  that  as  the 
Arroyo  Holon,  mentioned  in  your  testimony. 

J.  B.  Howard  objects  to  question  for  this  :  that  it  does  not 
truthfully  state  the  facts  testified  to  by  said  witness,  in  re- 
lation to  the  boundaries  of  said  rancho  under  the  juridical 


'2«y 


■measurement  thereof,  and  the  decision  of  the  Secretaryof 
the  Interior  of  January  6th,  1872. 

A.     I  do  ;  it  is  evidently  intended  to  represent  the  Arroyo 

Q  2  Will  yoii  please  look  at  the  map  and  answer  if  yoa 
recognize  the  Arroyo  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  which 
heads  near  tlH3  arroy o  you  ha ve  j ust  described  i  A,  i  (io  ; 
it  is  marked  Arroyo  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio. 

Q  3.  Do  yon  recognize  in  those  two  streams  on  saul 
map  the  Arroyo  Holon,  which  in  your  former  testimony  you 
gave  as  the  northern  boundary  of  said  rancho,  and  the  Ar- 
royo Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  which  for  its  whole  course 
YOU  gave  as  the  western  boundary  of  the  Kancho  ot  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio  ?  A.  I  recognize  both  arroyos  on  thi^ 
map  ;  the  Arroyo  Holon  being  marked  Arroyo  delos  Lste- 
ros  and  the  other  arro\o  being  marked  Arroyo  Corte  Ma- 
dera del  Presidio.  .       ,  ,.       .    i  ^i  • 

Both  arroyos  s^em  to  be  correctly  dekneated  on  tins 
map;  I  recognize  these  two  arroyos  on  this  map  as  the  ar- 
royos referred  to  by  me  in  niy  testimony  regarding  the 
northern  and  western  boundaries  of  said  rancho. 

^OrosS' Examimiim  by  Peter  ^Gardner, 

Q  1  Your  answer  to  question  11,  you  say  tliat  the 
northern  boundary  is  the  Arroyo  Holon.  Will  you  point 
out  in  the  juridical  papers  where  it  says  the  northern  bound- 
ary is  the  Arroyo  Holon  ?  ^  -      ^ 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Sharp  as  being  incompetent  and  irrel- 
evant, u.     T  -C      1    *1  A. 

A  In  the  copy  of  tht3  juridical  measurements  i  Imd  tlie 
following  words,  viz  :  "'They  commenced  said  measure- 
ments, and,  going  from  S.  to  N.,  they  measured  to  an  ar- 
royo  called  Holon."  These  words  locate  the  Arroyo  Holon 
at' the  northern  end  of  said  line,  and  seem  to  determine  said 
arroyo  to  be  a  boundary  of  the  rancho  in  that  direction,  that 
is  to  say,  on  the  north, 

Q.  i.  I)o  you  find  anything  int:he  juridical  papers  whicli 
causes  you  to  follow  said  arroyo  down  from  the  pomt  you 
first  mentioned  ?  if  so,  state  what  and  whei^  it  is. 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Sharp,  as  incompetent  and  irrelevant. 

A  I  cannot  answer  that  question,  unless  I  have  all  the 
juridical  papers  before  me.  (The  papers  are  now  presente(l 
to  the  witness.)     :N"ear  the   bottom  of  page  11,  and   top  ot 


290 

puoje  12,  of  said  juridical  papers,  I  find  these  words:  "  On 
the  north,  towards  the  Pueblo  of  San  Rafael,  the  boundcuy 
is  arroyo  called  Holon,"  and  a  forest  of  re<lvvood  trees,  which- 
is  also  called  Corte  Madera  de  San  Pablo. 

Q.  3.     By  whom  was  that  language  used  ? 

Mr.  Sharp  objects,  as  before. 

A.  It  purports  to  be  the  testimony  of  the  Alcade's  assist- 
ants, viz  :  Manuel  Sanchez,  Eusebio  Galindo,  Thomas  Jer- 
eniiaSy  Jose  de  las  Cruz  Sanchez. 

Q.  4.  D«>  you  find  any  such  thing  in  the  act  of  juridical 
measurement  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Sharp,  as  before. 

A.'    What  thing? 

Q.  5.     The  language  you*  just  used.     A.  I  do  uot» 

Q.  6.      Do  you  find  it  in  the  grant  ? 

Mr.  Sharp  objects,  as  before. 

A.     I  have  not  the  grant  before  me. 

Mr.  Brooks  here  ofters  a  certified  copy  of  judgment  roll, 
in  the  case  of  James  C.  B  )lton  vs.  Israel  Kashaw,  et  als., 
marked  Exhibit  T.  B.  V.,  No.  10. 

Objected  to  by  Messrs.  Gardner  and  Throckmorton,  as 
incompetent,  immaterial  and  irrelevant. 

The  witness  is  here  handed  a  copy  of  the  grant,  and 
says  : 

A.  The  paper  handed  me  is  a  printed  copy  ot  the  deci- 
sion of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  and  the  opinion  of  the 
Assistant  Attorney-General,  in  the  case  of  the  survey  of  the 
liancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio.  On  page  11  is  what 
purports  to  be  the  translation  of  title  and  juridical  posses- 
sion.    I  do  not  find  those  words  here. 

Q.  7.     Do  you  find  words  to  that  efi^ect  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Sharp,  as  before. 

A.  I  tind  these  words  :  "-  bounded  by  the  Mission  of  San 
Rafael." 

Q.  8.  What  evidence  did  you  have  before  you  to  locate 
the  solar  near  Post  C.  M.  P.  181,  referred  to  in  question 
15? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Sharp,  as  before. 

A.  I  never  located  it  myself,  but  was  governed  in  my 
opinion  by  the  judgment  of  Deputy  K.  C.  Mathewson,  in 
the  matter. 

Q.  9.  Did  you  have  any  evidence  before  you,  in  your 
experience  in  this  matter,  that  there  Avas  a  building  lot 
there  as  early  as  1834  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Sharp,  as  before. 


291 

A.  I  had  not. 

Q.  10.  Do  you  know  the  Arroyo  Holon  of  your  own 
knowledge,  or  by  hearsay  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Sharp,  as  before. 

A.  I  know  it  of  my  own  knowledge,  having  been  at  the 
arroyo  a  number  of  times,  and  have  surveyed  it  in  its  entire 
length. 

Q.  11.  State  how  and  when  you  first  knew  it  of  your 
own  knowledge. 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Sharp,  as  before. 

A.  It  was  first  pointed  out  to  me,  as  the  Arroyo  Holon, 
in  the  year  1858.  » 

Q.  12.     By  whom  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Sharp,  as  before. 

A.  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  13.  Is  not  said  arroyo  at,  or  near  its  source,  called 
the  Arroyo  Holon,  and  at  or  near  the  mouth,  the  Arroyo  de 
los  Esteros? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Sharp,  as  before. 

A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  14.  Witness  is  shown  Exhibit  Whitney's  Geological 
Map,  of  1873.  Do  you  recognize  any  public  or  vacant 
lands  between  the  Arroyo  de  los  Esteros,  thereon,  and  the 
lines  of  Corte  Madera  Rancho,  as  shown  on  the  map? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Sharp,  as  incompetent,  irrelevant,  and 
opening  up  new  matter,  and  not  cross-examination. 

Objected,  also,  by  Mr.  Throckmorton,  for  the  same 
reasons. 

A.  There  seems  to  be  some  vacant  land  lying  between 
the  Arroyo  de  los  Esteros  and  a  zigzag  line,  which  probably 
represents  the  western  boundary  of  the  Rancho  Corte 
Madera  del  Presidio,  according  to  the  Mathewson  survey, 
but  it  is  not  marked  vacant  land. 

Adjourned  till  to-morrow,  the  26th' day  of  April,  1876,  at 
10  o'clock. 

G.  F.  ALLARDT. 


April  26th,  1876. 

Met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Mr.  Sharp,  for  claimants,  moves  that  the  Surveyor-General 
re-instate  the  pages  of  the  testimony,  from  page  761  to  page 
776  inclusive,  which  appears  to  have  been  stricken  out  on 
motion  of  Mullen  &  Hyde. 


And  Mr.*  Sharp  nowhere  adopts  the  appearance  of  Mr.- 
Howard  for  his  clients  on  the  occasion  of  the  taking  of  said 
testimony. 

The  Surveyer-General  says  that  he  has  no  power  to  strike 
out  testimony  when,  once  reduced  to  writing;  and  that  the 
ruling  made  l)y  him  April  24th,  as  written  on  page  778,. 
w^as  not  intended  to  strike  out  any  portion  of  the  record. 

T.  B.  Valentine  tailed  by  SoL  A.  Sharp. 

Q.  1.  Were  you  acquainted  with  James  G.  BoTton,  the' 
person  mentioned  in  Ex.  'T.  B.  V.  Ko.  3,  dated  August  12th, 
1865?  A^  I  was  acquainted  with  him,  and  have  known  him 
since  about  the  year  1867. 

Q.  2.  Were  you  acquainted  with  Rudolf  Steinbach,  Emil 
Steinbach,and  Emil  Grisar,  as  early  as  1866,  67,  68,  and  69? 
A.  I  knew  them  all  during  those  years. 

Q.  3.  What,  if  any,  connection  had  they  with  James  C. 
Bolton  with  regard  lo  Ex.  T.  B.  V.  B.  jS^o.  3?  A.  Mr.  Ru- 
dolf Steinbach  told  me  that,  in  1865,  he  knew  of  the  Boltoa 
agreement  about  the  time  it  was  made. 

Q.  4.  When  did  he  tell  you  this?  A.  At  the  time  I 
made  the  purchase  from  Bolton,  on  the  28th  of  July,  1868. 

Q.  5.  You  had  notice  of  the  existence  of  the  original  of 
Ex.  T.  B..  Y.  ]S"o.  3,  on  the  25th  of  July,  1868,  had  you  not, 
when  you  made  your  purchase  ?     A.  I  had. 

Q.  6.     Was,  or  not,  the  fact  of  the  existence  of  the  ori- 
ginal of  Ex.  T.  B.  V.  No.  3  a  matter  of  notoriety  among  all 
persons  having  or  claiming  any  interest  or  any  portion  of^ 
the  Rancho  Gorte  Madera  del  Presidio,  or  any  lands  adja- 
cent thereto,  as  early  as  1867,  '68,  '69,  '70,  and  '71? 

Gbjected  to  by  S.  R.  Throckmorton,  on  the  ground  that, 
as  an  agreement  referring  to  real  estate,  it  should  be  a  mat- 
ter of  record,  in  order  to  give  notice ;  and  further,  that  it  is 
irrelevant,  incompetent,  and  immaterial,  because  it  cannot' 
affect  this  record  of  title,  inasmuch  as  Hilaria  Read  and 
J  no.  Read  have  divested  themselves  by  deeds  of  convey- 
ance, now  on  record,  of  all  the  right,  title,  and  interest,  both 
in  law  and  equity,  present  or  prospective,  in  all  the  lands 
conveyed  by  them  to  Bolton,  and  that  Inez  Read  de  Deffe- 
bach,  the  remaining  party  in  interest  in  said  lands,  has  by 
deed  of  record  conveyed  to  said  S.  R.  Throckmorton  all  her 
right,  title,  and  interest  to  the  one-fourth  part  of  all  the 
lands  so  heretofore  conveyed  by  Jno.  Read,  Hilarita  Read^ 
and  herself,-  ta  said  James  G.  Bolton* 


29S 

A.  I  think  it  was  generally  known  that  an  agreement  was 
made  with  Bolton,  to  recover  the  lands  outside  of  the 
Mathewson  survey,  and  within  the  juridical  possession,  for 
an  interest  in  the  lands  outside  of  the  Mathewson  survey. 

T.  B.  VALENTINE. 

Sol.  A.  Sharp,  counsel  for  claimants,  offers  certified  copy  of 
•decree  of  the  District  Court  of  the  IT.  S.,  in  the  case  of  the 
United  Stat-es  vs.  Jose  Y.  Limentour,  marked  ^'11.  R.  !>. 
H." 

T.  B.  Valentine  called  by  Peter  Gardner. 

Q.  1.  Did  you  ever  hate  a  school  land  warrant  laid  on 
the  land  adjoining  to  the  north  and  West  of  the  Mathewson 
survey,  on  the  Corte  Madera  de  San  Pablo,  claiming  that 
3aud  as  public  land  ?  A.  Not  that  I  rememher ;  and  I  know^ 
th-at  I  never  had  any  interest  in  anv  warrant  laid  on  that 
land.  '  T.  B.  VALENTINE. 

H.  d  Newhall  called  and  sworn  on  behalf  of  claimants 
(Sol.  A.  Sharp,  attorney). 

Q.  1.  Please  state  your  name,  age,  and  place  of  residence 
and  profession.  A.  Henry  C.  Newhall,  88  years  of  age  ; 
reside  in  San  Francisco,  by  profession  a  lawyer, 

Q.  2.  Do  you  know  S.  R.  Throckmorton  ;  if  so,  about 
liow  long  have  vou  known  him  ?  A.  I  do  know  him,  since 
1868  or  1869. 

Q.  3.  Look  at  ExhilDit,  marked  S.  R.  T.  No.  13,  and 
state  if  you  are  one  of  the  persons  who  signed  the  original, 
of  wdiich  said  exhibit  purports  to  be  a  copy. 

S.  R.  Throckmorton  objects,  as  being  incompetent  and 
irrelevant,  aaid  the  record  is  the  best  evidence. 

A.     I  am. 

Q.  4.  Look  at  Exhibit,  marked  T.  B.  V.  No.  3,  and 
state  if  you  ever  knew  of  the  existence  and  the  contents  of 
the  origitial,  of  wdiich  said  last  named  Exhibit  purports  to 
be  a  copy;  if  so,  wdien  did  you  first  know  of  it  ? 

Objected  to  by  S.  R.  Throckmorton,  as  incompetent  and 
irrelevant,  and  as  having  no  connection  with  the  subject 
matter  of  Exhibit  S.  R.  T,  No.  13. 

A.  I  don't  know  that  I  ever  saw  tlie  original;  I  have 
seen  a  copy  of  this  paper^  represented  to  me  to  be  a  copy  of 
the  original  agreement,  and  which  was  shown  to  me  by 
some  one  of  the  Read  family  or  by  Mr.  Valentine,  at  the 
time  I  w^as  first  employed  in  the  case  of   Bolton  vs.  Van 


294 

Kcynegoni,  et  als.,  same  time  in  1868  or  18(39,  anJ  so  reprc- 
sentecrbj  them  to  be  a  copy  of  the  original  ;  I  road  it  then^ 
and  conversed  frequently  with  some  ol  the  parties  interested 
in  the  case  concermng  the  subject  matter  of  that  case;  also 
read  it  frequently  afterwards, 

Q.  5.  S'tate  if  you  know  whether  S.  K.  Throekmoitous 
and  Plugh  A.  Boyle  before  and  at  the  time  of  theexe(!Ution) 
of  the  original  deed  of  which  Exhibit  marked  8^.  R.  T.  Xo. 
13  purports  to  be  a  coiy^  knew  or  had  notice  of  the  exist- 
ence and  contents  of  the  original  of  whicii  Exhibit  marked 
T.  B.  V.  Xo,  3  purports  to  be  a  €^o}»y  ;  und  if  so,  state  your 
means  of  knowledge. 

Objected  to  by  S.  R.  Throckmoitoii  as  incompetent,  ir^ 
relevaDt  and  immaterial,  ai)d  because  this  witness  is  no  pro- 
per source  from  which  to  obtain  the  information  sought  iu 
the  question,  and  because  the  question  nor  any  of  its  bear- 
ings has  any  relevancy  to  the  rights  of  property  of  any  of 
the  parties  in  this  controversy,  for  the  reason,  viz:  that  the 
entire  status  of  ownership  in  the  lands  described  in  said  Ex- 
hibits, by  reason  of  full  and  complete  divestiture  by  deeds 
of  conveyance  made  by  all  the  parties  conveying  the  said 
lands  to  said  James  C.  Bolton,  by  whom  said  covenant 
marked  T.  B.  Y.  Xo.  3  is  said  to  have  been  made,  ha» 
changed,  and  that  the  said  covenant  T.  B.  V.  No.  3  has  no 
standing  or  value  in  this  case.  The  whole  of  the  parties  in 
favor  of  whom  the  same  purports  to  have  been  made,  have, 
since  the  execution  of  said  covenant  marked  T.  B.  V.  No.»3, 
and  before  the  execution  of  deed  marked  Exhibit  S.  R.  T. 
Xo.  13  were  executed,  had  entirely  divested  themselves  of 
all  right,  title  and  interest  to  the  property  therein  described. 

A.  Mr.  Boyle  undoubtedly  did,  because  as  his  attorney 
in  the  case  of  Bolton  vs.  Van  Reynegom  et  als,  we  fre- 
quently conversed  about  the  contents  and  purport  and  object 
of  the  original,  of  wdiich  Exhibit  marked  T.  B.  V.  No.  3 
purports  to  be  a  copy,  and  prior  to  the  date  of  the  Exhibit 
marked  S.  R.  T.  No.  13  ;  and  that  1  should  presume  that  Mr. 
S.  R.  Throckmorton  was  well  awai-e  of  the  contents  of  the 
original  of  which  Exhibit  marked  T.  B.  V.  No.  3  purports 
to  be  a  copy,  from  the  fact  that  prior  to  the  execution  of  the 
deed  marked  S.  R.  T.  No.  13,  we  had  frequently  conversed 
about  the  same.  That  in  such  conversations  he  appeared  to 
know  the  contents  and  object  of  the  agreement,  a  copy  of 
which  is  marked  T.  B.  V.  No.  3.  By  ''we"  I  mean  Mr. 
Throckmorton  and  myself. 


295 

Q.  6.  Before,  and  about  the  time  of  the  execution  of  the 
original,  of  which  Kx.  S.  R.  T.,  No.  13,  purports  to  be  a 
c'opy,  did  yon  have  any  conversation  with  S.  K.  Throck- 
morton, in  relation  to  the  lands  or  portions  of  the  Rancho 
ot  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  included  in  the  Mathewson 
survey — if  so,  state  as  nearly  as  you  can  what  was  said  on 
that  occasion. 

Objected  to  by  S.  R.  Throckmorton  as  incompetent,  im- 
material  and  irrelevant,  and  because  all  the  subject-matter 
relating  to  property  and  lands  owned  or  claimed  by  said  S. 
R.  Throckmorton  are  matters  of  conveyance,  by  deeds  duly 
executed  and  recorded,  and  which  cannot  be  changed  or 
affected  by  any  recitals  or  assertions  at  desultory  conversa- 
tions by  or  with  anybody;  and  because  it  is  not  shown  that 
the  parties  to  these  instruments  were  present  during  any- 
such  conversations,  or  were  influenced  thereby. 

A.  I  frequently  had  conversations  with  Mr.  Throckmor- 
ton, prior  to  the  date  mentioned,  in  reference  to  the  lands 
both  included  within  and  excluded  from  the  Mathewson 
survey;  during  such  conversations  it  w^as  stated  that  the 
Read  heirs  had  undisputed  title  to  the  greater  portion  of 
the  lands  within  the  Mathewson  survey,  and  that  such  por- 
tions as  were  included  in  the  Bolton  contract,  Ex.  "  T.  B. 
V.  'No-.  3.,"  were  the  subject-matters  of  the  suit  of  Bolton 
vs.  Van  Reynegom. 

S.  R.  Throckmorton  moves  to  strike  out  so  much  of  the 
foregoing  answer  as  relates  to  the  land  covered  by  the  suit 
of  Bolton  vs.  Van  Reynegom,  the  same  not  being  included 
in  the  Matthewson  survey,  to  which  the  question  only  re- 
ferred. 

Gross- Examination  by  P.  Gardner, 

Q.  1.  For  what  object  was  said  Ex.  T.  B.  Y.  Xo.  3  with- 
held from  being  recorded  until  the  late  date  of  1871  ?  A. 
I  don't  know. 

Q.  2.  Was  it  not  withheld  for  tlie  purpose  of  keeping 
the  said  defendants  in  said  action  from  the  knowledge  of 
there  being  any  such  agreement  made  until  after  the  said 
case  was  decided  by  the  Court?  A.  I  have  no  doubt  that 
you  and  the  other  squatters,  and  Mr.  Throckmorton,  knew 
the  lull  contents  of  the  Bolton  agreement  long  prior  to  the 
trial  of  the  suit  mentioned,  and  I  base  sucli  belief  upon  fre- 
quent conversations  with  all  of  you  in  relation  to  this  mat- 
ter. 


296 

Q.  3.  Do  I  understand  you,  as  an  attorney  at  law,  tliat 
the  last  answer  is  an  answer  to  niv  last  question?  A.  1 
think  it  is.  '^  H.  C,  NEWHALL. 

Walter  Van  Dyke,  U,  S.  Attorney  for  the  District  of  Cali- 
fornia, oliers  as  follows  : 

Motion ;  That  the  Honorable  Surveyor-General  of  the  U. 
S.  for  California  dismiss  the  proceedings  on  the  Ransom-Al- 
lardt  survey  of  said  rancho  now  under  consideration,  and 
that  the  plat  of  survey  of  said  rancho,  made  by  TJ.  S.  De- 
puty Surveyor  R.  C.  Mathewson,  of  October  18,  1858 — plat 
filed  Sept.  19,  1859,  and  survey  approved  b}'  Surveyor-Gen- 
eral on  the  15th  of  August,  1860,  and  duly  approved  and 
published  accoi^ing  to  law,  under  the  Act  of  Congress,  ap- 
proved June  14,  1860,  be  substituted  as  the  official  plat  of 
survey  of  said  rancho  in  the  place  and  stead  of  Ransom  Al- 
lardt's  survey,  and  that  the  same,  plat  and  papers,  be  forth- 
with forwarded  to  the  honorable  the  Commissioner  of  the 
General  Land  Office  at  Washington,  for  the  issue  of  letters 
patent  of  the  United  States  for  said  rancho  and  according' 
to  said  Mathewson's  survey  to  the  confirmees,  the  heirs  of 
Juan  Read.  This  motion  is  presented  and  made  on  the 
ground  that  said  survey  of  said  rancho  by  said  Deput}^  Ma- 
thewson, approved  and  published  as  aforesaid,  became  final 
under  said  Act  of  June  14,  1860,  and  proceedings  had,  and 
that  said  survey  is  final. 

In  support  of  this  motion,  said  attorney  of  the  United 
States  submits  the  following,  to  wit :  The  record  of  proceed- 
ings had  in  said  case  and  survey  prior  to  July  1st,  1864,  and' 
those  embodied  in  the  written  motion,  and  Exhibits  here- 
with, filed  as  follows : 

1st.  Motion  of  the  United  States  to  dismiss  proceedings, 
etc.,  marked  '^  U.  S.  A.  l^o.  1." 

•  2d.  Order  of  approval  of  &aid  Mathewson  survey  by  the 
Surveyor-General,  dated  August  15,  1860,  marked  Exhibit 
U.  S.  A.  No,  2. 

3d.  Certificate  of  publication  of  said  survey,  under  the- 
act  of  June  14,  1860,  marked  Ex.  U.  S.  A.  No^  3. 

4th.  Order  entered  directing  return  of  survey  into  Dis- 
trict Court,  on  Sept.  13,  1860,  marked  Ex.  U.  S.  A.  JSTo.  4. 

5th.  Order  of  said  District  Court  approving  said  survey 
Sept.  28,  1865,  marked  Ex.  U.  S.  A.  E"o.  5. 

6th.  Decree  of  said  U.  S.  District  Court,  dated  October 
16,  1865,  reciting  that  the  foregoing  proceedings  were  in- 
advertently had,  and  ordering  the  approval  of  said  survey 


29^ 

^i^iit  aside,  ami  llie  proceedings  had  dismissed.  The  abov^ 
Exhibits,  Nos.  2,  8,  4,  5  and  0,  are  offered  by  duly  ce-rtifie,d 
copies. 

And  the  said  ITnited  S-tates,  by  her  said  Attorn-ey,  here- 
by gives  notice  that  said  motion  will  be  urged  before  the 
■Surveyor-General,  the  Coniniissioner  of  the  General  Land 
Office,  and  the  Honorable  Secretary  of  th^  Department  of 
the  Interior,  and  will  ask  th^  immediate  consideration  af 
the  matter. 

The  said  U.  S.  Attorney  also  offers  in  this  connection  the 
map  of  the  region  adjacent  to  the  Bay  of  San  Francisco, 
^Stute  GeologicaJ  Survey  of  Cahfornia,  by  J.  D.  Whitney, 
State  Geologist,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  location  of 
the  Kancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  as  surve3'ed  'fey  said 
Deputy  Mathewson,  marked  Ex.  U.  S.  A.  Xo.  7. 

Objections  to  the  foregoing  motion  and  Exhibits  by  S.  li. 
Throckinorton,  to  be  enumerated  to-morrow  morning,  April 
27,  1876,  after  half-past  10  o'clock  ;  also,  by  any  other 
parties  who  may  see  lit  to  make  objections  to  the  same. 

Adjournedno  Thursday,  April  27th,  1876,  at  10:80  a.  m. 


Met  this  day,  April  27th,  1876,  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

The  motion  of  the  District  Attorney  is  suspended,  to  be 
•re-instated  and  renumbered  at  the  close  of  the  case,  subject 
to  the  objections  made,  and  to  he  made,  by  the  contending 
parties,  as  per  order  of 'the  Surveyor-General. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Throckmorton  now  offers  Exhibit  "S.  R.  T. 
'Xo.  24,''  deed  (being  certified  copy)  Juan  J.  Read,  Itilaria 
M.  Read,  Thomas  B.  Deffebach'and  Inez  Deffebach,  his 
wife,  to  James  C.  Bolton,  dated  August  12th,  1865, 
heretofore  off'ered  in  this  case,  and  also  marked  ''T.  B.  Y. 
No.  7." 

Sol.  A.  Sharp,  for  <ilaimants,  objects  for  the  reason  that 
said  Exhibits  already  ap[»ear  in  evidence,  and  because  it  is 
incompetent  and  irrelevant,  and  also,  that  the  contestant 
offering  the  deeds  does  not  claim  any  interest  thereunder. 

Also,  Exhibit  (certified  copy)  S.  R,  T.  No.  25,  deed  of 
James  C.  Bolton  to  Thomas  B.  Valentine,  dated  July  25, 
1868,  heretofore  in  this  case,  and  marked  T.  B.  V.  Ko.  6. 

Sol.  A.  Sharp,  for -claimants,  makes  the  same  objection. 

Also,  Exhibit  S.  R.  T.  No.  26,  certified  copy  of  deed  of 
James  C.  Bolton  to  Rudolph  Steinbach,  dated  September 
16,  1865. 

Same  objection  by  Sharp. 


298 

Also,  Pjxbibit  8.  R.  T.  Xo.  27,  certified  copy  of  deed  from 
i^miolpli  Steinbach  to  Emil  Steinb:i<jii,  dated  March  28tb. 
1866. 

Saaie  objection  b}'  Sharp. 

Also,  Exhibit  ''^.  R.  T.  Xo..  28/'  Power  of  Attorney  (by 
certified  copy)  of  Emil  Steinbach  to  Riidolp  Steiubaeh^ 
dated  February  18th,  1864. 

Same  oljjection  by  Sliarp. 

Also,  Exhibit  S.  R.  T.  No.  21>,  certified  e>pv  of  deed  of 
Emil  Steinbach  to  Emil  Grisar,  dated  June  16th,  1866s. 

Same  objection  by  Sharp. 

Also,  Exhibit  ''S.  R.  T.  No.  30,  ^'  certified  copy  of  deed 
of  Emil  Grisar  to  S.  R.  Throckmorton,  dated  June  19ih, 
1866. 

SoL  A>  Sharp  makes  same  objeetioiK 

Also,  three  partition  deeds  oftV-red  in  connection  witli  Ex- 
hibit S.  R.  1\  Xo.  13,  which  last  Exhibit  is  deed  froni  Thom- 
as B.  Deffebach,  Inez  Read,  T.  B.  Valentine,  H.  C.  Xew- 
hall,  Maria  G.  de  Boyle.  The  said  partition  first  named  and 
referred  to  beine;  marked  as  follows: 

1st,  "S.  R.  T.^Xo.  31."  J)ee(l  fron^  S.  R.  Throckmorton 
to  Iludi  A.  Boyle,  dated  January  28,  1871.     * 

2d,  Exhibit  S.  R.  T.  Xo.  32.  Det^i]  from  S.  R.  Throck- 
morton to  Thomas  B.  Valentine,  dated  January  28,  1871. 

3d,  Exhibit  S.  R.  T.  Xo.  33.  Deed  from  S*.  R.  Throck- 
morton to  Inez  Read  de  Deffebach,  wife  of  T.  R.  Deffebach,. 
dated  January  28,  1871. 

Mr.  SoL  A.  Sharp  makes  the  same  objections  as  before. 

Also,  Exhibit  "S  R.  T.  Xo.  34."  Deed  from  Hugh  A. 
Boyle  to  H.  C.  Xewhall,  July,  1871. 

S.  R.  Throckmorton  ^worn  as  a  witness  in  his  own  be- 
half. 

Q.  1.  Are  you  the  Sam'l  R.  Throckmorton  referred  to 
in  Exhibits  S.  R.  T.  Xo.  31,  32,  and  33  ?  A.  I  am,  and  a 
contestant  in  this  case. 

Q.  2.  Please  look  at  Exhibit  S.  R.  T.  Xo.  13,  and  ex- 
plain, if  you  can,  the  relations,  if  an}^  that  existed  between 
the  three  Exhibits  last  referred  to,  and  the  deed  of  f.  B. 
Deffebach,  et  al.,  to  Julius  C.  McCeney,  being  "Exhibit  S. 
R.  T.  Xo.  13."  A.  The  three  deeds  marked  Exhibits  S.  R. 
T.  Xo.  31,  32,  and  33,  executed  by  me  respectively  to  Hugh 
A.  Boyle,  Thos.  B.  Valentine,  and  Inez  Read  Deffebach, 
were  executed  by  me  as  deeds  of  partition,  deeding  to  them 
their  respective  interests,  as  between  myself  and  the  parties 


299 

thereto,  and  the  said  deed  executed  by  them  to  Julius  C* 
McCeney,  that  is  to  sa3\  the  deed  executed  by  Thos.  B. 
DefFebach,  et  al.,  to  Julius  C.  McCeney,  marked  Exhibit  S. 
R.  T.  No.  1-3,  was  macie  to  him  for  my  use  and  benefit,  and 
was  made  in  his  name  for  convenience,  and  to  avoid  confu- 
*5ion,  and  was  made  in  the  execution  of  said  partition. 
Recess  till  2  o'clock. 

8.  R.  THROCKMORTON. 

Exhibits  offered  by  Edwin  Gardner,  to  wit:  "  Kx.  G.  R. 
No.  1,"  Edwin  Gardner's  objections,  and  subdivisions  of  the 
Mathewson  survey,  by  the  heirs  of  Jno.  Read. 

^'Ex.  G.  R.  No.  2.''  Probate  Court,  Marin  County.  In 
In  the  matter  of  the  estate  (>f  Jno.  Read,  deceased.  Cer- 
tified copy  of  order,  appointing  Jno.  S.  Gibbs  administrator 
or  guardian  for  minor  heirs. 

E.x.  G.  R.  No.  3.  Certified  copy  of  deed,  Jno.  S.  Gibbs, 
administrator,  to  B.  R.  Buckelew. 

Ex.  G.  R.  No.  4.  Certified  copy  of  appointment  of  Jat-\ 
McShafter  and  T.  Murphy  as  guardians. 

Ex.  G.  R.  No.  5.  Certified  copies  of  complaint  and  an- 
swer and  decree,  Garcia  et  al.  vs.  Buckelew  and  Gibbs,  7th 
J)ist.  Court,  Marin  County. 

Ex.  G.  R.  No.  6.  Certified  copies  of  complaint,  answer, 
and  judgment,  Albert  Gardner  vs.  B.  R.  Buckelew,  7th  Dist. 
Court,  Marin  County. 

Ex.  G.  R.  No.  7.  Certified  copies  of  complaint,  answer, 
and  judgment,  Edwin  Gardner  vs.  B.  R.  Buckelew,  7th  Dist. 
Court,  Marin  County. 

Ex.  G.  R.  No.  8.  Certified  copy  of  deed,  V.  D.  Doub  to 
Edwin  Gardner. 

Mr.  Sharp,  for  claimants,  objects  to  each  and  all  the  fore- 
going exhibits,  marked  respectively  G.  R.  No.  1  to  G.  R. 
No.  8  inclusive,  on  the  ground  that  each  of  the  same  is  in- 
competent and  irrelevant,  and  do  not  tend  to  elucidate  nor 
prove  any  of  the  issues  in  this  proceeding.  Also,  that  G. 
R.  No.  1  was  not  filed  in  time.  Also,  it  appears  that  John 
Read,  the  grantee  of  the  ranch,  died  bef  >re  the  admission 
of  the  State  of  California,  and  during  the  time  that  the  Mex- 
ican law  of  descent  prevailed,  and  there  was  no  authority 
for  the  appointment  of  any  adtninistrators  of  his  estate  ;  and 
said  exhibits  do  not  connect,  nor  tend  to  connect  the  said 
Edwin  Gardner  with  the  grant  of  said  rancho,  or  show  any 
title  in  him  to  any  portion  of  said  Ranch,  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio. 


SCO 

Peter  Gardner  is  called  in  rebuttal,  and  sworn.- 
Question  by  Mullen  &  Hyde  : 

Q.  1.  Did  you,  on  the  twenty -third  day  of  March,  ISTti^ 
Visit,  in  company  with  G.  F.  Allardt,  the  old  stone  mound, 
concerning  wbieh  the  said  Aliardt  has  .testified  in  this  caseV 
A.  I  did.^ 

Q.  2.  State  when  prior  to  said  d'ate^  if  ever,  ymi  first  saw 
said  old  stone  mound?     A.  In  the  fall  of  1853  or  1854, 

Q.  3.  At  the  date  when  you  first  saw  said  old  stone- 
mound,  was  there  any  stake  standing  therein  ?  A.  I  do  not 
recollect. 

Q.  4.  Had  there  been  any  such,  would  yon  not  be  likeh' 
to  remember  the  fact  V  A.  I  do  not  recollect  anything 
about  that  particular  stake,  as  the  whole  California  Cit}' 
tract  was  surveyed  and  laid  ofi:"  in  lots,  and  marked  with 
stakes.  '  PETj^.R  GARDNER. 

Peter  Gardner  offers  the  following  Exhibits  on  behalf  of 
self: 

P.  G.  Ko.  ly  being  his  objections  to  the  survey.— ^P.  G. 
No.  2,  Gardner's  Map,  heretofore  ofiV*red. — P.  G.  No.  3, 
being  certified  copy  of  instructions  to  R.  C.  Mathewson. — 
P.  G.  No.  4,  heretofore  offered. — P.  G.  No.  5,  being  deposi- 
tions of  Francisco  Sanchez,  J.  J.  Papyand  M.  G.  Vallejo. — 
P.  G.  No.  6,  petition  of  Widow  Read  for  the  lands  adjacent 
to  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio.- — P.  G.  No.  7, 
being  a  certified  copy  of  pre-emption  claim  of  Jolm  J. 
Read,  dated  the  28th  day  of  May,  1863.— P.  G.  No.  8,  being 
Exhibit  marked  T.  B.  V.  No.  3.— P.  G.  No.  9^  being  a  cer- 
tified copy  of  loeatioti  of  school-land  warrants  and  plats,  T. 
R.  Valentine  ei  al. 

Mr.  Sharp,  for  the  claimauts,^  objects  to  each  and  all  of 
said  Exhibits,  as  being  incompetent  and  irrelevant,  and  also 
because  said  Peter  Gardner  has  no  status  on  the  record  in 
this  case. 

B.  S.  Brooks  and  S.  R.  Throckmorton,  in  propria  persona,' 
join  in  the  above  objection-. 

Testimony  here  closed. 

Here  again  appears  Walter  Van  Dyke,  U.  S.  Attorney  for 
the  District  of  California,  and  moves  as  follows  : 

Motion. — That  the  Hon.  Surveyor-General  of  the  U.  S. 
for  California  dismiss  the  proceedings  on  the  Ransom- 
Allardt  survey  of  said  rancho  now  under  consideration,  and 


301 

tliat  the  plat  t)f  snrvev  of  s'nd  ranclio  made  by  IT.  S.  Depute 
Hnrvoyor  R.  C.  Matiievvson,  of  October  18th,  1858— plat 
tiled  September  19th,  1859,  and  survey  approved  by  Sur- 
veyor-General on  the  15th  of  Aui^ust,  1860 — be  substituted 
as  the  official  plat  of  survey  of  said  rancho,  in  the  place  and 
stead  of  Ransom  Allardt's  survey,  and  that  the  same — plat 
and  papers — be  forthwith  forwarded  to  the  Honorable  the 
Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  at  Washington, 
for  the  issue  of  letters  patent  of  the  United  States  for  said 
rancho,  and  according  to  said  Mathewson's  survey,  to  the 
contirmees,  the  heirs  of  Juan  Read. 

This  motion  is  presented  and  made  on  the  ground  that 
said  survey  of  said  rancho  by  said  Deputy  Mathewson,  ap- 
proved and  published  as  aforesaid,  become  final  under  said 
«,ct  of  June  14th,  1860,  and  proceedings  had,  and  that  said 
survey  is  final. 

In  support  of  this  motion  said  Attorney  of  the  United 
States  submits  the  following,  to  wit :  The  record  of  pro- 
"ceedings  had  in  said  case  and  survey  prior  to  July  1st,  1864, 
and  tliose  embodied  in  the  written  motion  and  Exhibits 
herewith  filed,  as  follows  : 

1.  Motion  of  the  United  States  to  dismiss  proceedings^ 
-etc.,  "U.  S,  A.  1^0,  i;' 

2.  Order  of  approval  of  said  Mathewson's  survey  by  the 
Surveyor-General,  dated  Aug.  15th,  1860,  marked  Exhibit 
U.  S.  A.  ¥o,  2, 

3.  Certificate  of  publication  of  said  survey  under  the  act 
of  June  14th,  1860,  marked  Ex.  U.  S.  A.  Ka  3. 

4.  Order  entered  directing  return  of  survey  into  District 
€ourt,  September  18th,  1860,  marked  U.  S.  A,  "No.  4. 

5.  Order  of  said  District  Court  approving  said  survey, 
September  28,  1865,  marked  Ex.  U.  S.  A.  l^o.  5. 

6.  Decree  of  said  U.  S.  District  Court,  dated  October  16, 
1865,  reciting  that  the  foregoing  proceedings  were  inadver- 
tently had,  and  ordering  the  approval  of  said  survey  set 
aside  and  the  proceedings  had,  dismissed.  The  above  Exhi- 
bits i!»J"os.  2,  3,  4,  5,  and  6,  ai-e  offered  by  duly  certified  eopies. 

And  the  said  United  States,  by  her  said  attorney,  hereby 
.gives  notice  that  said  motion  will  be  urged  before  the  Sur- 
veyor-General, the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office, 
and  the  Honorable  Secretary  of  the  Department  of  the  Inte- 
rior, and  will  ask  the  immediate  consideration  of  the  matter. 
The  said  U.  S.  Attornej^  also  offers  in  this  connection  the 
map  of  the  region  adjacent  to  the  Bay  of  San  Francisco, 
State  Geological  Survey  of  California  by  J,  D.  Whitney^ 


302 

•State  Geologist,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  location  of 
the  Raueho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  as  surveyed  by  said 
De])uty  Mathewson,  marked  Ex.  U.  S.  ^o.  7. 

Adjouriied  until  Tuesday,  the  2d  day  of  May,  1876,  at  10 

o'clock  A.  M. 


Case  called  this  2d    day   of  May,   a.  i>.   1876,  at   10:30 

o'clock  A.  M. 

Mullen  &  riyde  object  to  the  foregoing  motion,  and  said 
Exhibits,  and  for  reasons  stated  on  pages  from  830  to  838  in- 
clusive. 

,  Mullen  &  Hyde,  while  uniting  as  they  do  in  the  motion 
of  Hon.  Walter  Van  Dyke  made  herein — as  they  understand 
the  same — to  set  aside  the  Ransom-AUardt  survey  of  the 
"Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,"  and  because,  as  they 
allege,  for  the  various  irregularities,  and  3y  virtue  of  other 
matters  set  forth  and  shown  in  the  rocord  of  these  proceed- 
ings, do  object  to  the  substitution  therefor,  and  the  reinstat- 
ing of,  the  so-called  "Mathewson  survey  of  said  raueho," 
as  approved  by  U.  S.  Surveyor-General  Mandeville,  and  for 
reasons  which  they  set  forth  and  as  follow,  to  wit  : 

1st.  That  admitting,  which  they  do  not,  that  any  and  all 
action  of  U.  S.  Surveyor-General  Mandeville,  heretofore  had 
in  the  matter  of  the  survey  of  the  "Rancho  Corte  Madera 
del  Presidio,"  to  be  correct  and  valid,  the  same  was  not 
final  but  was  subject  to  the  control,  supervision  and  right  of 
review  of  the  Hon.  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office, 
and  because  said  control  and  right  of  review  was  vested  in 
said  Commissioner  by  law. 

By  the  Act  of  Congress  of  July  4th,  1836,  (5  Statute  10") 
reorganizing  the  G.  L.  0.,  it  was  specially  provided: 

That  all  the  Executive  duties  then  or  afterwards  to  be 
prescribed  by  any  law^  touching  the  disposition  of  the  public 
lands  or  any  private  claim  thereto,  were  made  subject  to 
the  supervision  and  control  of  the  Hon.  Commissioner  of  the 
G.  L.  0. 

That  the  making  this  particular  survey  by  U.  S.  Surveyor- 
General  Mandeville  was  one  of  the  Executive  duties  referred 
to  in  said  law,  and  that  General  Mandeville's  action  in  the 
premises  was  subject  to  the  supervision  and  control  of  said 
Commissioner  of  the  G.  L.  0. 

That  the  action  of  the  Hon.  Com.  G.  L.  0.,  already  had 
herein,  and  the  subsequent  review^  thereof  on  appeal  to  the 
Hon.  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  whose   right  of  supervision 


808 

extends  to  all  matters  over  which  the  Commissioner  has  ju- 
risdiction, was  the  exercise  by  that  officer  of  such  supervi  - 
ory  power  and  control,  and  t\vdt  this  action  and  judgment  of 
these  officers  was  a  final  disposition,  by  the  highest  execu- 
tive authority  of  the  II.  S.  Land  Dept.,  over  this  subject 
matters,  and  is  now  ''■res  adjudkata  ;"  and  as  such,  the  par- 
ties thereto  having  been  represented  and  fully  heard,  are 
now  concluded,  and  that  the  said  matter  is  not  how  subject 
to  review  by  their  successr>rs  in  office,  and  that  the  IT.  I*^, 
Surveyor  has  no  jurisdiction  in  the  premises,  and  cannot  en- 
tertain said  motion. 

2d.  Because  said  motion  contains  recitals  of  matters  as 
facts  which  are  incorrectly  stated,  in  this. 

That  i)lat  of  Mathewson  survey  was  approved  by  \] .  S. 
Sur.-Gen'l  Mandeville,  on  Aug.  loth,  1860,  when  said  date 
should  have  been  Sept.  15th,  1859 ;  aiid  that  said  survey 
was  published  (meaning  thereby  correctly,  and  validly  and 
legally  published)  under  the  act  of  June  14th,  1860,  which 
is  error. 

3d.  Because,  whdt  purports  to  be  the  original  of  said 
*' Exhibit  U.  S.  ^o.  2,"  filed  in  support  of  said  motion,  is 
nothing  more  than  a  series  of  loose  sheets  of  printed  mem- 
oranda (dated  Aug.  15th,  1860)  oK  certain  matters  therein 
contained  and  posted  in  memorandum  form  of  scrap  book, 
and  that  said  original  does  not  bear  the  signature  of  the  U. 
S.  Surveyor-General  Mandeville,  subscribed  thereto;  but 
said  name,  like  the  remaining  material  matters  therein  con- 
tained, is  printed;  and  said  original  seems  to  be  a  series  of 
memoranda  sheets  for  convenient  reference  to  the  matters 
therein  contained,  as  shown  by  the  many  and  various  lead 
pencil  jottings  and  annotations  thereon;  and  that  neither 
the  said  original  memoranda,  nor  a  certified  copy  thereof,  is 
the  best  or  even  competent  evidence  of  the  fact  or  date  of 
approval  of  the  survey  of  this  rancho ;  but  that  the  original 
writing  of  the  date  of  the  approval  of  said  survey,  as  signed 
by  U.  S.  Sur.-Gen'l  Mandeville  on  the  original  plat  ot  the 
survey  of  said  rancho,  is  the  best  evidence  of  both  of  said 
facts  ;  and  that  said  date  is  not  Aug.  15,  1860,  but  is  Sept. 
19th,  1859. 

4th.  Because  what  purports  to  be  tlie  original  of  "  Ex- 
hibit U.  S.  A.  Xo.  8,"  is  not  in  hai-mony  with  what  purports 
to  be  the  original  of  ''Exhibit  U.  S.  A."  Xo.  2,"  in  this,  that 
the  date  of  approval  of  survey  of  the  ranclio  in  the  one 
case  is  set  forth  as  Aug.  15th,  1860,  and' in  the  other  as  Sept. 
19th,  1859. 


304 

5th.  Because  said  "Exhibit  U,  S.  A.  N'o.  3/'  must  be 
taken  in  its  entirety;  and  when  so  taken,  it  appears  that 
the  original  thereof  is  from  a  book  of  printed  forms,  with 
blank  spaces  left  in  said  forms  to  be  filled  up,  and  which 
spaces  are  so  filled  up  in  said  original,  bj  mattors  therein  ; 
but  that  it  is  specially  shown  and  written  in  red  ink,  on  tl)e 
face  of  said  original  and  ali^o  on  the  face  of  the  certified 
copy  thereof,  that  the  Mathewson  survey  of  this  rancho  was^ 
on  the  IWi  day  of  Sept. ^  18(50,  ordered  into  the  U.  S.  District 
Court, 

That  on  said  13th  day  of  September,  1860,  the  Mathew- 
son survey  of  this  rancho,  as  set  forth  in  said  ''Exhibit  U. 
S.  A.  No.  3,"  had  not  been  published  for  four  weeks  in  two 
newspapers,  as  prescribed  by  law,  but  that  said  survey  had 
been  published  m  07ie  newspaper  for /or^r  weeks,  and  for  only 
three  weeks  in  another  newspaper,  and  that  prior  to  its  pub- 
lication for  four  weeks  in  two  newspapers,  as  prescribed  by' 
law,  and  as  set  forth  in  said  Exhibit,  the  said  survey  was 
ordered  into  the  IT.  S.  District  Court,  as  provided  for  by 
section  2  of  the  Act  of  June  14th,  1860. 

That  immediately  thereupon,  to  wit :  September  13th, 
1860,  the  U.  S.  Surveyor-General  lost  all  public  jurisdiction 
thereof,  and  on  that  same  day,  September  13th,  1860,  as 
shown  by  said  Exhibit  IT.  S.  A.  No.  4,  the  V.  S.  District 
Court  assumed  jurisdiction  (and  that,  too,  upon  the  motion 
and  the  filing  objections  to  said  Mathewson  survey  hy  the 
claimants  herein)  of  the  subject-matter  of  said  survey,  and 
that  said  District  Court  retained  said  jurisdiction  and  con- 
trol thereof,  and  continued  to  exercise  the  same  until  Octo- 
ber 16th,  1865,  as  shown  by  "Exhibit  U.  S,  A.  No.  6,"  and 
which  was  filed  in  said  IT.  S.  District  Court  on  the  24th  of 
October,  186e5,  and  that  the  Act  of  14th  June,  i860,  reserved 
to  the  courts  of  the  United  States  the  power  of  such  revis- 
ion of  the  surveys  of  all  private  land  claims.. 

That;  on  July  1st,  1864,  neither  the  survey  of  this  Rancho, 
lis  made  by  said  Mathewson,  nor  the  plat  of  said  survey,  as- 
approved  by  IT.  S.  Surveyor-General  Mandeville,  had  been 
approved  by  the  IT.  S.  District  Cjurt  for  California,  nor  by 
the  Commissioner  (^f  the  General  Land  Office,  and  that, 
therefore,  under  section  2d  of  the  Act  of  July  1st,  1864,  the 
provision  of  section  1st  of  said  Act  became  applicable  there- 
to, and  that  thereunder  said  survey  had  to  be  pubUshed  as. 
provided  for  in  said  A.ct  of  July  1st,  1864. 

That  whatever  approval  of  said  survey,  as  had  by  said  IT. 
B.  District  Court,  was  by  said  Court  vacated  and  set  aside. 


§05 


^"incl,  tljLM'L'fore,  the  said  ?vliitliuvvsoH  survey,  both  under  sec^ 
lion  3d  of  said  special  Act  of  July  1st,  1864,  as  well  as  un- 
"xler  the  special  Act  of  March  8d,  1851,  and  the  general 
laws  of  July  4th,  1836,  again  came  under  the  supervisiou, 
control,  and  right  of  review  of  the  CommissioneV  of  the 
(general  Land  Office. 

Finally.  A  survey  of  a  private  laud  claiui  in  California, 
"lUiide  under  the  |)n)Vision  of  the  Act  of  Congress  of  March 
M,  1851,  and  approved  hj  the  IT.  S.  Surveyor-General,  piior 
to  the  Act  of  June  14th,  1860  (which  were  the  facts  in  this 
case),  could  not  he  legally  published  under  said  act,  but 
must  be  }>ub]ished  under  the  i)rovisions  of  the  Act  of  Julv 
Ist,  1804. 

MULLEX  &  HYDE, 
Attorneys  for  Objectors-. 


Mr.  Shanklin,  comnsel  for  S.  R.  Tlirockniorton,  objects  to 
•the  motion  made  by  U.  S.  District  Attorney  Van  Dyke,  and 
to  the  papers  filed  by  him  in  support  of  his  motion,  for 
Teasons  as  follows  : 

1st.  That  the  District  Attorney  knew  that  the  case  of 
the  United  States  vs.  the  Heirs  of  Juan  Read,  had  been 
dismissed  in  the  District  Court  by  proc-eedings  had  the  16th 
•day  of  October,  A.  D.  1865,  as  will' appear  by  the  certified 
'Copy  of  proceedings  had  therein  on  that  date,  and  now  of- 
fered.    [See  next  page— 839.] 

2d.  Because  the  papers  offered  in  support  of  the  motion 
•are  only  a  [sartial  record  of  th<i  court  proceedings  therein. 

3d.  i3ecause  the  grant  of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del 
l^-esidio  was  a  [>erfeet  grant,  under  the  Mexican  laws  ;  and 
the  survey  thereof,  under  the  Mexican  laws,  had  settled, 
fixed  and  determined  the  boundaries  of  said  Rancho  more 
than  ten.  years  prior  to  the  treaty  c»f  Guadalupe  Hidalgo, 
•and,  under  said  treaty,  the  United  States  acquired  no  rights, 
in  any  respect,  over  said  ranoho,  as  to  the  character  of  the 
grant  or  the  determination  of  any  of  its  boundaries,  and 
acquired  no  power  to  change  said  boundaries. 


306 

At  a  terra  of  tbe  District  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  and 
for  the  Northern  District  of  California,  held  at  the 
Couit  Room  of  the  said  Coart,  in  the  City  and  County 
of  San  Francisco,  in  the  district  aforesaid,  on  Monday^ 
the  '1 6tli  day  of  October,  A.  D.  1865. 

4 

Present,  Hon.  Ogden  HoiFraan,  Judge. 

The  United  States,       ^ 

vs.  I 

The  Heirs  of  Juan  Read.  J 

Upon  reading  and  filing  the  notice  of  motion,  on  the  part 
of  the  District  Attorney,  to  dismiss  the  exceptions  to  the 
survey  and  the  affidavit  of  B.  S.  Brooks  and  S.  A.  Sharp, 
Attorneyj^  of  the  clainiHiits,  from  which  it  appears  that  the 
order  or  decree  heretofore  entered  was  entered  under  mis- 
apprehension. On  motion  of  B.  S.  Brooks,  Esq.,  Attorney 
of  the  claimants,  it  is  ordered  that  the  said  order  or  decree 
overruling  said  exceptions  and  approving  the  survey,  be  set 
aside — be  vacated  and  annulled  ;  and  it  is  further  ordered, 
on  the  like  motion,  that  all  proceedings  in  this  court  touch- 
ing the  said  survey,  be,  and  the  same  are  hereby  dismissed. 

OGDEN  HOFFMAN, 

District  Judiire. 

o 

A  true  copy  of  original  order  now  on  tile,  in  the  case  U. 
S.  vs.  Juan  Read. 

Attest :         Geo.  C.  Gorham,  Clerk. 

By  S.  Neall,  Dep.  Clerk. 

[Endorsed.]  Order  setting  aside  survey  approved  by 
U.  S.  District  Court,  September,  1865,  Corte  Madera  del 
Presidio.     U.  S.  Surveyor-General's  Office.     Filed  Feb.  5, 

1867. 

Mr.  B.  S.  Brooks,  on  behalf  of  claimants,  objects  that  the 
Surveyor-General  has  no  jurisdiction  to  entertain  said 
motion,  because  1st,  the  Surveyor-General  has  no  jurisdic- 
tion to  review  the  proceedings  of  the  Honorable  Commis- 
sioner and  Honorable  Secretary  of  the  Interior;  2d,  the 
matter  now  pending  is  upon  the  order  referring  the  matter 
back  to  the  Surveyor-General  under  special  directions,  and 
the  power  and  duty  ot  the  Surveyor-General  is  confined  to 
a  compliance  with  the  instructions  of  the  Honorable  Com- 
missioner and  Secretary.  3d.  The  question  of  the  finality 
of  the  Mathewson  survey  has  been  adjudicated  by  the  Dis- 
trict Court,  the  former  Surveyor-General,  the  Commissioner 


307 

of  the  Generiil  Land  Office,  and  the  Secretary  of  the  In- 
terior, and  the  question  is  now  res  judicata,  and  their  decision 
has  become^  the  law  of  the  case.  Mr.  lirooks  also  concurs 
in  the  objections  of  Mr.  Mnllen  and  of  Mr.  Shanklin. 

Mr.  Slianklin,  counsel  of  Mr.  Throckmorton,  concurs  in 
the  objections  of  Mr.  Bi-ooks. 

J.  H.  Wilde,  chief  draftsman  of  the  United  States  Sur- 
veyor-General's office,  called  by  Mullen  &  Hyde. 

Q.  1.  Were  you  in  the  office  of  the  Surveyor-General  in 
1859  V  A.  I  can't  remember  whether  I  came  in  September 
or  October,  1859  ;  but  in  October  I  certainly  was,  and  have 
been  ever  since. 

Q.  2.  In  whose  handwi-iting  are  the  certificates  on  plat 
i^o.  206,  being  that  of  Mathewson's  survey  of  this  rancho  ? 
A.  The  certificate  of  approval  of  survey  is  in  the  handwrit- 
ing of  Bielawski,  chief  draftsman  in  the  Surveyor-General's 
office  at  that  time,  except  the  signature  "J.  W.  Mandeville," 
which  is  in  the  handwriting  of  said  Mandeville. 

The  certificate  of  publication,  the  body  of  it  is  in  my  own 
handwriting— I  was  then  assistant  draftsman  ;  the  signature 
is  in  the  handwriting  of  the  United  States  Survevor-General, 
J.  W.  Mandeville. 

Q.  3.  What  is  the  book  now  shown  you,  entitled  on  the 
back:  Certificate  of  Advertised  Surveys,  Volume  I  ?  A.  It 
is  a  record  book  of  this  office;  it  contains  the  certificate  of 
publication  of  surveys  for  the  years  1860  and  1861. 

Q.  4.  Is  a  similar  record  continued  down  to  this  date  ? 
A.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge  it  has  been,  as  I  have  had 
occasion  to  refer  to  it  from  time  to  time. 

Q.  5.  Is  the  Volume  I,  as  originally  prepared  for  use,  of 
blank  paper  or  of  printed  forms  V    A.  It  is  of  printed  forms. 

Q.  6.  Are  the  words,  "  and  I  further  certify  that  no  order 
for  the  return  thereof  to  the  U.  S.  District  Court  has  been^ 
served  upon  me,"  written  or  printed  ?     A.  Printed. 

Q.  7.  Is  it  struck  out  in  any  instance  in  said  volume  ? 
A.  It  is  not. 

Q.  8.  You  find  a  memorandum  in  red  ink  at  the  top  of 
the  page  on  divers  pages  similar  to  that  on  page  i^^  ?  A.  I 
do. 

fj.  9.  What  is  it,  and  by  whom  made?  A.  It  is  an  en- 
try of  the  fact  tliat  the  survey  has  been  ordered  into  the 
District  Court,  and  the  date  of  the  order  ;  tliey  are  in  the 
handwriting  of  difierent  clerks  in  this  office;    I  should  say 


.  308 

that  the  one  on  page  66  is  in  the  handwriting  of  C.  E.  GliJ- 
den,  chief  field-note  clerk  in  this  office  at  that  time. 

Q.  10.  Is  that  vohime  an  official  record  of  this  office,  and  is 
that  entry  an  official  entr}?  A.  It  is  the  only  record  of 
that  kind  that  I  know  of,  and  has  ahvavs  heen  kept. 

Q.  11.     Where  is  Mr.  GUdd'en  ?     A.  He  is  dead. 

Q.  12.  Is  page  66  of  said  Yolnnie  I  the  original  of  Ex- 
hihit  U.  S.  A.  ISo.  3  ?     A.  It  is. 

Q.  13.  Look  at  the  hook  now  shown  you,  labelled  on 
the  side:  "Ranchos-  ordered  into  U.  S,  ])ist.  Court,"  and 
state  what  it  is.  A.  It  is  a  record  haok,  kept  in  this  office, 
of  the  orders  ordering  the  surveys  of  ranchos  into  court. 

Q.  14.  What  is  <jntered  in  said  book  ?  A..  ]^anies  of 
ranchos,  the  date  when  the  older  was  filled,  when  the  sur- 
vey was  filed,  and  a  column  of  remarks. 

Q.  15.  Do  you,  on  page  14,  find  an  entry  respecting  this 
rancho;  if  so,  what  is  it  V  A.  I  do.  Under  the  head  of 
name  of  rancho,  "Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,"  and  under 
the  head  of  when  order  filed,  "  Sept.  13th,  1860  ;"  under  the 
head  of  when  survey  filed,  "Dec.  22d,  1860,"  and  under  the 
head  of  remarks  I  find  nothing. 

Q.  16.  Look  at  the  book  ik)vv  shown  you,  and  state  what 
it  is.  A.  It  is  a  recard  kept  in  this  office  of  publication  of 
private  land  claims. 

Q.  17.  Is  that  the  original  fram  which  Exhibit  U.  S.  A.- 
No.  2  is  taken  ?     A.  It  is. 

Q.  18.  How  is  this  book  forraed  ?  A.  It  is  a  scrap-book 
originally,  in  which  printed  fornr^s  are  pasted,  siraihir  to 
Exhibit  V.  S.  A.  No.  2.  These  printed  forms  are  filled  up 
and  pasted  in.  There  are  no  blank  ones  in  it,  and  the  book 
is  not  full. 

Q.  19.  Does  Exhibit  U.  S.  A.  No:  2  conform  in  all 
respects  to  the  said  original  ;  if  not,  wherein  does  it  differ  ? 
A.  The  word  copy  is  not  on  the  original  ;  certain  pencil  an- 
notations that' are  on  the  original  are  not  on  the  copy.  At 
the  end  of  each  line  are  certain  figures  in  pencil  which  ap- 
pear to  be  a  date,  and  they  are  probably  the  date  of  the 
approval  of  the  survey.  The  first  column  preceding  the 
names  are  the  names  of  places  in  ink,  with  a  pencil  mark 
drawn  across  them.  At  the  end  af  these  names,  in  most 
instances,  the  letter  "  C,"  sometimes  in  red  ink  and  some- 
times in  pencil.  There  are  various  other  check  marks  in 
pencil  that  I  do  not  understand,  which  are  not  on  the  copy. 

Walter  Van  Dyke,  the  U.  S.  District  Attorney,  on  behalf 
of  the  United  States,  offers  supplemental  to  the  Ex.  U.  S/ 


309 

A.,  1  to  7,  the  following  papers:  1st.  Published  certificate 
of  approval  and  publication  of  said  Mathewson's  Surve3\ 
Publication  in  the  Sonoma  County  Journal^  from  August  24th 
to  September  14th,  1860,  and  in  the  daily  and  weekly  San 
Francisco  Herald,  rive  insertions,  certificate  dated  U.  S.  Sur- 
veyor-General's office,  San  Francisco,  August  16th,  1860. 

The  above  are  offered  in  orio^inal,  and  copies  thereof  filed, 
marked  Exhibit  U.  S.  A.  IS^o.  8,  and  Exhibit  U.  S.  A.  No.  9. 

Adjourned  till  3  o'clock  p.  m.  this  day. 


3  o'clock  p.  M. 

Sol.  A.  Sharp,  fv>r  claimants,  joins  in  the  objections  of  B. 
S.  Brooks,  to  the  said  motion  of  Walter  Yan  Dyke,  U.  S. 
District  Attorney ;  also,  because  the  Rancho  of  Corte  Madera 
del  Presidio  was  segregated  from  the  public  domain  by  the 
act  of  juridical  possession,  under  the  Mexican  Government, 
and  thereby  became  a  grant  of  the  specific  quantity,  and  the 
specific  tract  of  land  so  measured  off  to  the  grantee,  which 
was  binding  on  the  Mexican  Government,  and  is  equally 
binding  on  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  under  the 
treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo,  and  neither  our  Government, 
nor  any  of  its  courts  or  ofiicers,  have  any  power  or  right  to 
change  the  same. 

Mr.  Sharp  now,  at  this  date.  May  20,  1876,  moves  on  be- 
half of  the  clients  he  represents,  that  the  case  be  now  closed 
and  submitted,  together  with  the  motion  of  the  District  At- 
torney, on  briefs  to  be  filed  within  thirty  days  from  this  date, 
with  leave  to  Mr.  Throckmorton's  attorney  to  file  an  Exhibit 
from  District  Court  in  this  case.  B.  S.  Brooks  joins  with  J. 
B.  Howard,  Walter  Van  Dyke,  U.  S.  attorney,  Peter  Gardner, 
and  S.  L.  Cutter,  attorney  for  E.  E.  Gardner,  join  in  and  sec- 
ond the  above  motion. 

S.  R.  Throckmorton  moves  to  amend  said  motion  and 
substitute  therefor,  in  accordance  with  the  consent  and  or- 
der of  the  United  States  Surveyor-General,  that  this  case  be 
ridjourned  until  10  o'clock  a.  m.  of  Thursday  next. 

Amendment  not  accepted  by  any  of  the  attorneys. 

S.  R.  Throckmorton  protests  against  said  adjournment. 

The  amendment  is  denied,  and  the  case  declared  closed. 

July  14,  1876,  S.  R.  Throckmorton  filed  Exhibit  marked 
"  S.  R.  T.  IN'o.  35,"   being  notice  of  motion  to  dismiss  pro- 


cz 

310 

eeedings  in  U.  S.  District  Court  in  case  of  U.  S.  vs.  Heirs  of 
Juan  Read.  .,,,,..       .    :        •  : 

No.  306  Pine  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal, 

I,  J.  A.  Robinson,  United  States  Commissioner,  duly 
appointed,  qualified  and  acting,  do  certify  that  the  witnesses 
named  in  the  foregoing  record  in  the  matter  of  the  survey 
of  the  Rancho  Corte  Madera  del  Presidio,  were  each  by  me 
first  duly  sworn  on  their  respective  corporal  oaths,  to  testify 
the  whole  truth  touching  the  matters  in  controversy  in  said 
cause  ;  That  their  testimony  was  taken  on  the  several  days 
specified  in  the  foregoing  record,  at  the  office  of  the  United 
States  Surveyor-General.  . 

July  15,  1876.  Attest  r      J.  A.  R0BINS0:N", 

{seal.}  United  States  Commissioner. 


t 


